Suresh Babu M Vs State of Karnataka

S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS COMMANDANT OF HOME GUARDS DISTRICT HOME GUARDS OFFICE CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE ASSISTANCE SERVICES) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶18

AND COMMANDANT GENERAL CIVIL DEFENCE

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND HOME GUARDS NO.1

¶22

AUM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶23

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA

¶24

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.HD 19 SHG 2024 DATED 16/03/2024 ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-T, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ONE IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OFFENDING ARTICLES 14 & 16 OF CONSTITUTION AND PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA STATE HOME GUARDS ACT AND RULES AND ETC

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶35

a) ISSUE A WRIT OF certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. HD 19 SHG 2024 dated.16.03.2024 issued by 1ST respondent vide Annexure-T, as arbitrary, illegal and void and one in violation of principles of natural justice offending Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution and provisions of Karnataka State Home Guards Act and Rules

¶36

b) ISSUE any other consequential order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the ends of justice and equity.

¶37

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

¶38

2.1. The State Government by notification dated 26.07.2021, has addressed a letter to respondent No.1 so as to undertake the responsibility of the Home Guards Commandant followed by notification under the provisions of the Karnataka State Home Guards Rules, 2003 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’ for short) and in the exercise of the said powers. The petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard Commandant

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

on 07.08.2021 for 5 years commencing from 26.07.2021 to 26.07.2026. After a lapse of 2 years and 6 months of service, a stranger from Chikkaballapur appears to have sent a mail in the nature of complaint to respondent No.3 on 06.05.2023, alleging that the petitioner is campaigning for the political parties and involved in political activities. A report was submitted by respondent No.3 regarding campaigning for political parties and involved in political activities. Respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 03.01.2024. The petitioner produced the statements made by the Guards who were working in his office on 12.01.2024 and 16.01.2024. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 19.01.2024 denying the allegations against him. It is contended that the respondents, without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and without proper enquiry, passed the order of termination dated 16.03.2024. The impugned order dated 16.03.2024, is in the nature of final decision of removing the petitioner from service and arriving at a positive findings of the petitioner for having committed a

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

misconduct. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.03.2024, filed this writ petition.

¶45

The State has filed a statement of objections admitting the appointment of the petitioner as a Home Guard Commandant and it is contended that, the petitioner was campaigning for political parties and they have received several complaints against the petitioner. Hence, the respondents have passed the impugned order and the impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶47

the petitioner and also the learned AGA for State.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard Commandant. The respondents have passed the impugned order without holding an enquiry. The impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Per contra , learned AGA submits that, the petitioner was campaigning for political parties and received several complaints. She also submits that, the Superintendent of Police has submitted a report regarding the petitioner’s involvement in criminal cases. The impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Perused the records and considered the

¶53

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶54

The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard Commandant; a complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that he is campaigning for the political parties and he is also involved in the criminal activities; several cases are registered against him. The respondents have issued a show-cause notice and the petitioner had replied to the same, but the respondents have passed the impugned order.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

From the perusal of the impugned order, it clearly discloses that, it is highly a stigmatic order. If the order of punishment passed is a stigmatic order, the respondents are required to hold an enquiry. Ultimately, in the instant case, no enquiry was held by the respondents before passing of the impugned order. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of

¶59

Mahantesh Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Others¹ . The Co-ordinate Bench, considering Rule 3-C (5) of the Rules, has quashed the stigmatic order of termination. The petitioner herein is also entitled for a similar benefit on the ground of parity.

¶60

Since serious allegations are made against the petitioner, an enquiry needs to be held in that regard. The petitioner has to face the enquiry. Ultimately, the result of the enquiry will decide as to whether the petitioner is innocent or not, and the further consequences will follow.

¶61

1 WP No.81153-81154/2012, disposed of on 20.02.2014

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:53993 WP No. 9432 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass

¶66

the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶69

ii. The order of termination dated 16.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-T, is hereby set aside;

¶70

iii. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to initiate enquiry on the same allegations and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶71

iv. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶72

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶73

PA

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Suresh Babu M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu M 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ugrappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

Sri Umesh a Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. Shailesh Kumar Vs the Union of India

Sri Ishappa Mayakar Vs the Vice Chanslar

Sri Chandra Naik N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prashantha L Vs State of Karnataka