Sanganna Irappa Sulibhavi Vs the State of Karnataka

BEERAPPA HUGAR S/O KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN GOPPENAHALLI BRANCH CHANNAGIRI SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE DIVISION - 577 213

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SKILL AND DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOODS, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT DAIRY CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 029.

¶21

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT DAIRY CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 029

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶23

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M) BESCOM, HADADHI ROAD, NEAR VIDHRATHI BHAVAN CIRCLE DAVANAGERE -577002

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. C. CHENNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 30.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE R-6 IN NO.DHA/KANIIM(Vi)/LEA/SALEAA HISA(SA)/7101-04 DTD. 30.09.2025 OF THE PETITIONER NO.1, NO.DHA/KANIIM(Vi)/LEA/SALEAA HISA(SA)/7105-08 DTD. 30.09.2025 OF THE P-2 VIDE ANNX-G, G1 PASSED BY THE R-6. QUASH THE COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE R-3 DTD.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

26.09.2025 IN NO. KAITAU/TA/VRUPAVI/NAIJATE/ VIVA19/2017-18 VIDE ANNX-E AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATION OF ART-14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“(i) To quash the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025 issued by the office of respondent No.6 in No.DA / KaNiIm (Vi) / LeA / SaLeAa HiSa (Sa) / 7101-04 dated 30.09.2025 of petitioner No.1, in No.Da / KaNiIm (Vi) / LeA / SaLeAa HiSa (Sa) / 7105-08 dated 30.09.2025 of petitioner No.2 vide Annexures-G, G1 passed by respondent No.6.

¶36

(ii) quash the Committee Report of respondent No.3 dated 26.09.2025 in No.KaiTaU / Ta / VruPaVi / NaiJaTe / ViVa / 19 / 2017-18 vide Annexure-E as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶41

Respondent No.6 invited applications to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Linemen and pursuant to the said invitation, the petitioners applied for the said post. Based on the merit, the petitioners were appointed and given a posting in various places of Davanagere District. Respondent No.6 sent a communication dated 04.11.2016 requesting respondent No.3 to verify the documents submitted by the petitioners.

¶42

Though Respondent No.6 did not receive any reply to the said communication, however, respondent No.3 sent a Committee report dated 26.09.2025 to the effect that the name of the petitioners was not in the approval list issued by the Joint Director, Belagavi Division, on the ground that their marks card is not genuine.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The Division Bench, of this Court, in W.A. No.261 of 2020, vide order dated 09.11.2020 in respect of the problems faced by the similarly placed employees, directed the office of respondent No.2 to appoint an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against the employees.

¶47

After almost 10 years, in 2025, respondent No.3 sent a Committee Report, which was requested by respondent No.6 in 2016. In the said Committee Report, respondent No.3 specifically mentioned that the petitioners have not taken the approval from the competent authority for admission. Hence, the documents produced by the petitioners are not genuine, and based on the Committee Report of respondent No.3, respondent No.6 issued a showcause notice to the petitioners.

¶48

The petitioners have submitted a reply to the show cause notice. It is contended that the petitioners

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

have an apprehension that respondent No.6, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, is likely to terminate the petitioners from the service and hence, this writ petition.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondents.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners are making an attempt to terminate the petitioners from the service. He submits that till the enquiry is concluded, the petitioners may be permitted to continue in their service. He submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the reply and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶54

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice and he submits

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶58

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶59

There is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Linemen in the year 2015. Respondent No.6 requested respondent No.3 to verify the documents produced by the petitioners. The enquiry committee, after verification of the documents, found that the documents submitted by the petitioners are not genuine and respondent No.6 issued a show cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why an extreme action of dismissal from service cannot be issued against the petitioners.

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43542 WP No. 32338 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The petitioners replied to the show cause notice, denying the allegations made in the show cause notice.

¶63

Admittedly, the impugned notice is a show cause notice. The petitioners have replied to the show cause notice. The respondents without considering the reply to the show cause notice, cannot terminate the petitioners from service.

¶64

As it is a show cause notice and the petitioners have already submitted a reply, the respondents are directed to consider their reply and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶65