Sharanayya S/O Soppayya Vs the Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sharanayya S/O Soppayya Vs the Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.06.2025 (Office Order No. 147/2025, Annexure-F) quashed, with liberty reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order discharging the petitioner from service during probation, which was not confirmed by the next higher authority and was passed contrary to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, is liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

A discharge order passed by the competent authority under Rule 6 of the Probation Rules has to be confirmed by the next higher authority; in the present case the impugned order (Annexure-F) was not confirmed by the next higher authority and, being contrary to Rule 6 of the Probation Rules, was liable to be quashed on that short ground.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 vide Annexure-F passed by the second respondent is quashed, reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench), Writ Petition No. 104231 of 2025 (S-RES) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India - Service law: discharge of a probationer. The petitioner, appointed as Peon by the second respondent (Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Belagavi) on 28.07.2023 and working in the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gokak, was discharged from service by Office Order No. 147/2025 dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure-F) while on probation. Under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, a discharge order passed by the competent authority has to be confirmed by the next higher authority; the impugned order was not so confirmed and was therefore contrary to Rule 6. Held, on that short ground, the impugned order was liable to be quashed: the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed with liberty reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9239 WP No. 104231 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 104231 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHARANAYYA S/O SOPPAYYA AGE 35 YEARS OCC: PEON (NOW DISCHARGED) R/O H NO.6-13 JEWARGI ROAD KOTNOOR D TALUK, KALBURAGI DISTRICT - 585 102. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT BELAGAVI- 590001. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING OFFICE ORDER NO. 147/2025 DATED. 20.06.2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, SO FAR PETITIONER I.E., CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9239 WP No. 104231 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.06.2025 vide Annexure-F, passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service.

The petitioner was appointed as a Peon by the second respondent on 28.07.2023. When he was on probation, the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 vide Annexure-F has been passed and he has been discharged from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed contrary to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short, Probation Rules’). The respondent passed the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9239 WP No. 104231 of 2025

HC-KAR

impugned order without the confirmation from the higher authority. On that short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that under Rule 6 of the Probation Rules the order passed by the second respondent for discharging the petitioner has to be confirmed by the next higher authority. In this case, it has not been confirmed by the next higher authority. Before confirmation, the impugned order has been passed discharging the petitioner from service.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

The petitioner was working as a Peon in Senior Civil Judge Court, Gokak. When he was on probation, the impugned order vide Annexure-F has been passed discharging the petitioner from service as per Rule 6 of the Probation Rules. The discharge order passed by the competent authority has to be confirmed by the next higher

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9239 WP No. 104231 of 2025

HC-KAR

authority. In the case on hand, the impugned order Annexure-F is not confirmed by the next higher authority. Since the impugned order is contrary to Rule 6 of Probation Rules, on that short ground, the order is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 vide Annexure-F passed by the second respondent is quashed reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

(iii) In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of.

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

Cm/LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1