Allowed¶60

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/102948/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HESCOM Assistant Linemen recruitment 2015; dismissal from service; fake marks card; ITI marks card verification; respondent No.2 order 20.02.2025; parity with co-employees; reinstatement subject to enquiry by retired District Judge; W.A. No.261/2020; W.P. No.46307/2018; writ of certiorari; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; service law.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure-N) quashed; writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.3-5 to act in accordance with the orders in W.A. No.261/2020 and connected matters and reinstate the petitioner into service. ¶60

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 102948 OF 2025 (S-DIS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAXMI NILESH PAWAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT LINEMEN IN HESCOM, PRESENTLY WORKING IN KHANAPUR, R/O. KOLUR TANDA, TQ: MUDDEBHIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR-586129.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, STATE OF COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, DIARY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560076.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580020.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M, RURAL DIVISION HESCOM LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M, RURAL DIVISION NO.2 HESCOM LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE SECTION OFFICER, O AND M, BALEKUNDRI SECTION, HESCOM LIMITED, BALKUNDRI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R6)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ORDER OF DISMISSAL) DATED 23/04/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-N BEARING NO.¨É/UÁæ«/PÁ¤EA(«)/¯É/¸À¯É/24-25 CYS-01 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.04 AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶28

The petitioner has filed the present petition

¶29

seeking to quash the impugned order of dismissal dated 23.04.2025 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure N.

¶30

On 19.01.2015, HESCOM called for recruitment of Assistant Linemen. The petitioner after going through the recruitment publication, applied for the said post through online submission, based on which the petitioner was called for endurance test on 19.03.2015. On completion of endurance test, appointment letter was issued on

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

17.06.2015. The petitioner joined HESCOM Hubli and reported for duty at Khanapur sub-division, Belagavi on 18.06.2015 with the consent letter. The petitioner was discharging the duty with all sincerity. Respondent No.2 issued a letter to M. Viveshwaraiah ITI, Muddebihal, with respect to affiliation to Government of Karnataka. Based on which, respondent No.1 sent a letter to respondent No.2 for complete verification of marks card. This being state of affairs, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 20.02.2025 holding that the petitioner had submitted a fake and not genuine marks card, based on which, respondent no.4 issued a notice seeking explanation from the petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied stating that her marks card are genuine and no offence or mischief has been committed. However, without taking into consideration, the statement of the petitioner, respondent No.4 terminated the petitioner from her service on 23.04.2025 without any valid reason.

¶34

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner that in identical matter, the petitioners had

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.46307/2018 which came to be disposed of on 19.06.2019 and this Court had directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits which was taken up in appeal by the respondents in W.A. No.261/2020 and connected matters disposed of on 09.11.2020 wherein, a direction was issued to constitute a Tribunal to check the genuineness and veracity of the marks card. The Division Bench at paragraph 18 to 26 has held as under:

¶39

“18. With regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards that the employees have submitted on the basis of which they have been appointed as Assistant Lineman in the appellant’s Company, having regard to the magnitude of the controversy, inasmuch as information in respect of 173 employees is yet to be received from the Department, there is initiation of enquiry in respect of 74 fake marks card and certain persons have approached this Court and have been granted relief. We think that it is just and proper to direct Sri. H.M.Nanjunda Swamy, retired District Judge and presently the Director of the Bengaluru Arbitration Centre, to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and to submit a report to the appellant in the place of Sri.Shivannagoudar, who has been appointed by the appellants. Learned Enquiry Officer shall decide the venue of the enquiry and he shall be suitably remunerated by the appellants.

¶40

It is needless to observe that all the respondents/employees who have not yet been reinstated shall be reinstated into service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, if not already reinstated. This direction is being

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

issued since the appellants have already reinstated twelve employees and therefore, having regard to the principle of parity, all the respondents/employees shall be reinstated, if not already reinstated. It is further directed that the said reinstatement is subject to the result of the enquiry and any benefits that they have received consequential to the reinstatement shall also be subject to the result of the enquiry except the salary that they would receive for serving in the appellant’s company. To that extent, the impugned order is modified.

¶44

Learned Enquiry Officer shall conduct the enquiry within a period of nine months from the date of commencement of the enquiry by him. It is needless to observe that the appellants and the respondents/employees shall co-operate with the Enquiry Officer for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry.

¶45

It is further clarified that on such reinstatement being made, the respondents/employees shall only be entitled to the last drawn salary for the duties performed by them in the appellant’s Company. All arrears of salary as well as further consequential benefits shall be subject to the result of the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the learned Enquiry Officer.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid direction issued, W.A.No.389/2020 is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2019 in W.P.No.35720/2019 is set aside and the directions issued in other writ appeals would apply insofar as this appellant also is concerned.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid directions, CCC.No.1153/2019 arising from W.P.No.46307/2018 disposed on 19.06.2019 directing reinstatement could not survive for further consideration and in view of the directions issued above, on such reinstatement being made, shall squarely apply to this complainant also.

¶48

Registry to make available a copy of this judgment to Sri.H.M.Nanjundaswamy, retired District Judge and presently Director of Bengaluru Arbitration Center.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Respondent No.2/Department in W.A.No.261/2020 to submit a report with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards of 173 and other employees to the appellants. Liberty is reserved to the appellants to take steps for expeditious investigation to be conducted on the complaints filed and FIR registered by the appellants as well respondent No.2/Department.

¶52

Liberty is also reserved to the appellants to initiate proceedings in respect of all the employees where the report has been received from the Department that marks cards are not genuine.

¶53

Appeals are allowed in part.”

¶54

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶55

petitioner that the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.261/2020 stated herein supra is squarely applicable to

¶56

the case of the petitioner.

¶57

Learned counsel for the respondents do not

¶58

dispute the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶59

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶60

i. This petition is allowed.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7510 WP No. 102948 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ii. The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by 4^th respondent bearing No.¨É/UÁæ«/PÁ¤EA(«)/¯É/¸À¯É/2425 CYS-01 is quashed.

¶64

iii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to take action in accordance to the orders passed in W.A. No.261/2020 and connected matters and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶65

Ordered accordingly.

¶66

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶67

kmv CT-MCK

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pundalik Vs Ganapati S/O. Shivaputrayya Hiremath

Pundalik Vs Mahadev S/O. Shankrayya Pujari

Pundalik Vs Shankrayya S/O. Mahadev Pujari

Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni, Vs the Managing Director

Shri. Kumar Hattikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Prakash Dinakar Desai, Vs the Deputy Commissioner