Allowed¶54

Shri Rajesh D v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025WP/3560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grama Sahayaka dismissal reinstatement; Tahsildar Gubbi Taluk endorsement quashed; HOA.CR 01/2016-17; FIR Crime No.157/2022; departmental enquiry directions; enquiry officer articles of charge show-cause; Rule 8 Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957; Article 226 writ petition; subsistence allowance; WP No.3560/2025; WP No.2019/2024; WP No.3228/2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; endorsement dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A) issued by the second respondent quashed; second respondent directed to reconsider the matter per the directions in WP No.2019/2024 (disposed 05.09.2024); petitioner free to seek reinstatement and subsistence allowance pending enquiry; representation to be considered within 2 weeks and enquiry concluded within three months. ¶54

Shri Rajesh D Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsement dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A), passed without following the specific directions issued by this Court in WP No.2019/2024 (order dated 05.09.2024) regarding conduct of a proper disciplinary enquiry before refusing reinstatement, requires to be quashed.

¶52

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The impugned endorsement dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A) issued by the second respondent is quashed, as it was passed without following the Court's earlier directions to hold a proper enquiry.

¶56

Key takeaways

The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in WP No.2019/2024, disposed of on 05.09.2024.ratio¶57
The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the second respondent seeking reinstatement and payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry.ratio¶62
If such a representation is submitted, the second respondent is directed to consider it within 2 weeks of submission and to conclude the enquiry within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.) allowed WP No.3560/2025 (S-DIS) filed under Article 226 challenging endorsement No.HOA.CR 01/2016-17 dated 19.12.2024 of the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk, refusing reinstatement of Grama Sahayak Shri Rajesh D. Earlier, the petitioner, terminated on 07.07.2022 after registration of FIR in Crime No.157/2022, had obtained quashing of his termination in WP No.3228/2023 (order dt.19.04.2023), and in WP No.2019/2024 (order dt.05.09.2024) the Court had set aside the refusal endorsement dated 28.09.2023 and directed appointment of an enquiry officer, framing and service of articles of charge, replies, enquiry report, second show-cause and penalty only thereafter, invoking due process akin to Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 (as recorded in the quoted extract). Finding that the fresh endorsement was again passed without following those directions, the Court quashed it, directed reconsideration per the earlier directions, permitted the petitioner to seek reinstatement and subsistence allowance pending enquiry, and fixed timelines of 2 weeks for considering the representation and 3 months for concluding the enquiry.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3560 OF 2025 (S-DIS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI RAJESH D

¶9

S/O SHRI DODARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BENACHIGERE HUDALURU VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA 572223.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHUPATHY S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶15

VIDHAN SOUDHDA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA 572216.

¶17

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA 572216.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. HOA.CR 01/2016-17 DATED 19.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-A) AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Grama Sahayak in the second respondent and he has served as Grama Sahayaka for six years without any blemish on record. On the basis of a complaint by the Tahasildar, dated 02.07.2022, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.157/2022. On the basis of the criminal case, departmental enquiry has been initiated and the petitioner

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

has been terminated from service by order dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure-F). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in WP No.3228/2023. This Court, by order dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure-H) allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination and observed that, however, it is open for the respondents to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents, by order dated 28.09.2023 vide Annexure-N issued an endorsement stating that it is not possible to re-appoint the petitioner to the post of Grama Sahayak. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP No. 2019/2024. This Court, by order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure-P) has allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order dated 28.09.2023. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

¶33

“6. The appointment of the petitioner as Grama Sahayaka is not in dispute. It is also not in

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

dispute that the order of appointment did contain a condition that the respondent No.2 is entitled to dismiss the petitioner, in the event of his services being found unsatisfactory or undesirable. If the respondent No.2 desired to dismiss him on the ground that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory, he could have done so, but without imputing any misconduct. However, if the dismissal was on the basis of a criminal case Registered against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 must have realized that the petitioner was innocent until he was proved guilty. Therefore, the respondent No.2 must have framed articles of charge based on the allegations made in the charge sheet that the petitioner had conspired with Kariyanna to concoct revenue entries in his name and that he had made revenue entries in the name of his mother and served it on the petitioner, an opportunity must have been given to reply to the charge and after considering the reply, if any, appoint an officer to enquire into the charge and submit a report and after considering the report and furnishing a copy to the petitioner, issue a notice calling upon him to show cause why the report should not be accepted and a punishment imposed. After considering the reply if any, to proceed to impose suitable punishment or exonerate him. This procedure is inevitable in all cases where an employee is

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

dismissed if it is based on some misconduct. In the case on hand, the impugned order was based on two allegations namely, (i) that the petitioner was complicit in Cr.No.157/2022 and (ii) that the petitioner had brought about revenue entries in the name of his mother in respect of certain Government land. The respondent No.2 could not have condemned the petitioner unheard.

¶41

7. The respondent No.2 being the disciplinary authority must have appointed any officer as an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations and thereafter take a conscious call, whether the services of the petitioner had to be continued. Without doing so, the respondent No.2 cannot dismiss the petitioner without following due process of law is something similar to what is contained in Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set at naught on this short ground alone. Hence the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to appoint any of his subordinate or any independent person as an enquiry officer who shall conduct an enquiry as stated above. This exercise shall be done within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to seek reinstatement, soon after the respondent No.2 considers the enquiry report that may be submitted.”

¶48

In spite of this Court giving specific directions in WP No. 2019 of 2024, without following the directions issued by this court, again the impugned order has been passed refusing to reinstate the petitioner into service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶49

This Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP No. 2019/2024 disposed of on 05.09.2024 has given a clear direction that the respondent has to appoint an enquiry officer, articles of charges has to be framed, it has to be served on the petitioner and a show-cause has to be

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

given. After obtaining the reply, the enquiry has to be conducted. After conducting that enquiry, a second show cause notice has to be issued and the penalty has to be imposed. In spite of such specific directions, without following the same, again the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the impugned order requires to be quashed.

¶53

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶54

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 19.12.2024

¶56

vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent is quashed.

¶57

(iii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in WP No. 2019/2024, disposed of on 05.09.2024.

¶58

(iv) The petitioner is at a liberty to submit a representation to the second respondent, seeking

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:34354 WP No. 3560 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

reinstatement and for payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry.

¶63

(v) If such a representation is submitted, the second respondent is directed to consider the same within 2 weeks from the date of submitting the representation and conclude the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

¶67

Shri Rajesh D v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajesh D v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nityakalyani Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Arif Ulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay Kumar S Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Prabhakar P Vs the Chairman

Smt Bhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tanuja R Vs the State of Karnataka