Sri Nagesh E Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Nagesh E Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 07.11.2019 at Annexure 'L' passed by respondent No.4 quashed; competent authority directed to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within three months, and to reinstate the petitioner if the allegation is not proved; no immediate reinstatement pending redoing of the process.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure 'L') dismissing the petitioner from service, passed without giving any notice to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice and the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 07.11.2019 dismissing the petitioner was passed without giving any notice to the petitioner; it is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is against the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Since the State did not dispute that no notice was issued before passing the impugned order, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Key takeaways

Although the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service until the process is re-done by the respondents.ratio¶¶50
The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶56
If, upon redoing the process, the authority concludes that the allegation made against the petitioner is not proved, the authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Natural justice / Article 14 — dismissal without notice. A Multipurpose Rehabilitation Worker, appointed on 28.01.2008 pursuant to Government Order dated 16.08.2007 issued under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, was dismissed by order dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure 'L') of respondent No.4 without any notice, and the order was never communicated to him (he learnt of it only on 17.10.2020). The State did not dispute the absence of notice. Holding that dismissal without notice is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and of the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court quashed the dismissal order. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner was not to be reinstated immediately; the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order after affording him an opportunity of hearing within three months, and to reinstate him if the allegation against him was found not proved.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14884 OF 2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI NAGESH E S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KODALAPUR, MADUGIRI TALUK PURAVARA HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572175.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN, CHILDREN DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

THE DIRECTOR DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE DEPARTMENT FIRST FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEPARTMENT TUMKURU-572101

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

THE DISTRICT DISABLED & SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKURU 572201

MADHUGIRI TALUK PANCHAYATH MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 572175

THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR DISABLED IN KARNATAKA RISALDAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.BOJEGOUDA T.KOLLER., AGA., FOR R1 TO R4 & R6 R5 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, FURTHER DIRECT CONTINUATION OF SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF MULTI-PURPOSE REHABILITATION WORKER, MRW UNDER THE R-5.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 07.11.2019 vide Annexure 'L' passed by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

The case of the petitioner is that the State Government under the provisions of The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, has issued the Government Order dated 16.08.2007 thereby constituting the posts of Rehabilitation Officers such as Village Rehabilitation Workers and Multipurpose Rehabilitation Workers. Pursuant to the said Government Order dated 16.08.2007, the petitioner has been appointed as Multipurpose Rehabilitation Worker on 28.01.2008 vide Annexure 'B'. Pursuant to that, he has reported to duty on 05.02.2008 as per Annexure 'C' and he was working continuously without any break. When things stood thus, respondent

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

No.4 has issued the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 at

Annexure 'L' dismissing the petitioner from service.

The specific case of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner is that the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 at Annexure 'L' is passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. In fact, the same has not been communicated to the petitioner. He came to know only on 17.10.2020. It is further submitted that when serious allegations are made against the petitioner without giving any notice, the impugned order has been passed violating the principles of natural justice and the same is against the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner has sought for allowing the writ petition.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Multipurpose Rehabilitation worker on temporary basis. Since there is a serious allegation of corruption, he has been terminated from the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

service. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the writ petition papers.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed as Multipurpose Rehabilitation worker on 28.01.2008 and on 05.02.2008 vide Annexure 'C' he has reported to duty. Respondent No.4 by impugned order dated 07.11.2019 vide Annexure 'L' dismissed the petitioner from service. The said impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. It is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is against the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The State Government has filed statement of

objections. It has not disputed the contention of the petitioner that notice has not been issued to the petitioner

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

before passing the impugned order at Annexure 'L'. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The impugned order has been passed on 07.11.2019 and from that day, the petitioner is not working. Even though the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service till the process is re-done by the respondents.

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed .

ii) The order dated 07.11.2019 at Annexure 'L' passed by respondent No.4 is quashed.

iii) The competent authority is directed to pass an order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the authority comes to the conclusion

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20927 WP No. 14884 of 2020

HC-KAR

that the allegation made against the petitioner is not proved, the authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

JT/CT:JL