Smt Bhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.04.09.2023 PASSED VIDE ¸ÀASÉå:G¤ªÉÄÊ:L¹r-2:CA:PÁ:PÀ:ªÀeÁ:: 2023-2024/797 PASSED BY R-4 AS PER ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE SALARY FROM THE DATE OF IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the fourth respondent vide Annexure A, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:34358 WP No. 5949 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi helper

¶35

in Anganwadi Center at Hirenandi by order dated 30.10.2011. Thereafter she was promoted as Anganvadi Assistant on 29.07.2017. When she was working as an Anganwadi worker, on the allegation of misappropriation

¶36

of the food which is meant for children, an enquiry has been initiated. The notice has been issued to the petitioner calling for explanation vide Annexure-D dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner submitted a reply on 21.07.2023 vide Annexure-E. After considering the reply, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has made serious allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner has misused 13 kgs of milk powder which was meant for the Anganwadi children. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply. Without giving any opportunity

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34358 WP No. 5949 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

for the petitioner to explain her case, the impugned order has been passed. In support of his case contention, he relied on the order of this court in WP No.5738/2019, disposed of on 25.02.2019 stating that, personal hearing has to be given before terminating the service of a temporary employee. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that the notice dated 12.07.2023 has been given to the petitioner seeking for explanation regarding the 13 kgs. of milk power, which is being transported illegally. On the other hand, the petitioner has taken a contention that the milk powder has been forcefully taken from the petitioner and transported by her relatives,. Since the petitioner has admitted the misusing of the milk powder meant for the children, the question of giving personal hearing would not arise. The authority, after obtaining the report from the local officer that she was caught red handed while transporting the milk powder

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:34358 WP No. 5949 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

illegally has issued the impugned order. Therefore conducting the detailed enquiry is not necessary. Hence, he sought for dismissal of that writ petition.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition papers.

¶47

It is not in dispute that, when the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Assistant, on the allegation that the petitioner was illegally transporting 13 kgs of milk powder, which is meant for the children, in the auto, issued the impugned order. The impugned order also states that the petitioner was caught red-handed when she was transporting the milk powder in the auto. After initiating the enquiry, the authority has issued a notice on 12.07.2023 seeking explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner has given a reply vide Annexure-E. She has not denied that 13 kgs of milk powder was transported in the auto, but her case is that her relatives have forcibly taken

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34358 WP No. 5949 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the milk powder from the petitioner and they were transporting the same in an auto.

¶51

Be that as it may. Since serious allegation has been made against the petitioner, in view of the judgment of this Court in WP No. 5738/2019, disposed of on 25.02.2019, the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order vide Annexure-A. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶52

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶53

(i) The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶54

(ii) The impugned order dated 04.09.2023 vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶55

(iii) The respondents are directed to continue the enquiry from the stage the petitioner submitted a reply and pass an order, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:34358 WP No. 5949 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(iv) It is made clear that, even though Annexure-A is quashed, respondent is directed not to reinstate the petitioner. In case the petitioner succeeds in the enquiry she may be reinstated into service.

¶60

(v) This Court, while granting an interim Order on 16.10.2024 has observed that, any appointment made pursuant to the notification at Annexure-F would be ‘subject to the orders to be passed in the present writ petition’. The said interim order is modified as the same is ‘subject to the result of the enquiry’ and the appointee shall not plead equities.

¶61

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

¶63

CM

Smt Bhagya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagya 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

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

Shri Rajesh D Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhakar P Vs the Chairman

Smt Tanuja R Vs the State of Karnataka