Smt. v Rajalakshmi, Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. V. RAJALAKSHMI, W/O JAGADISH M.R AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, STENOGRAPHER, MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD., ON DEPUTATION TO DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, 9TH FLOOR, V.V. MINI TOWER, BENGALURU - 560 001. R/AT NO.4, SRI SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, J.C. NAGAR, (R.K. BLOCK) BANGALORE - 560 006.

¶12

(BY SMT. RAMYA S.L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGLAORE - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19813 WP No. 32052 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶19

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR

¶20

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE) HEAD OFFICE, 9TH FLOOR, V.V. MINI TOWER, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE STATE NODAL OFFICER SCHEDULED CATE NOMADIC SEMI NOMADIC, SENSITIVE AND ULTRA SENSITIVE DEVELOPEMNT CELL 12TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/LETTER BEARING NO. SWD/560/SDC/2022 DTD 25.11.2022 AT ANNX-Q ADDRESSED BY THE R-1 TO THE R-2 AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:19813 WP No. 32052 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this petition, petitioner is seeking the following reliefs-

¶32

"i) Issue an order quashing the impugned order/letter bearing No.SWD/560/SDC/2022 dated 25.11.2022 at Annexure-Q addressed by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent, as illegal, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

ii) Direct the respondents to continue and absorb the Petitioner in the 2^nd respondent Corporation with all consequential benefits.

¶34

iii) Pass such other order or direction deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case."

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner having been working in M/s.Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi, the petitioner was deputed to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation - respondent no.2 and was working there from 2016 onwards. Subsequently, the respondent no.1 issued impugned communication dated 25.11.2022 to respondent no.2 - Corporation directing it to

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19813 WP No. 32052 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

remove the petitioner from service. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in pursuance of impugned communication at Annexure-Q dated 25.11.2022, respondent no.2 - Corporation repatriated the petitioner back to M/s.Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., which was closed and no longer in existence.

¶40

It is the contention of the petitioner that though similarly situated persons have been absorbed into the services of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Corporation - respondent no.2 and various other corporations, the repeated representations submitted by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents no.1 to 3 and as such petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-Corporation fairly submitted that pursuant to the impugned communication at Annexure-Q dated 25.11.2022, no enquiry had been conducted as against the petitioner and if reasonable time is granted, the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered and a decision would be taken in accordance with law.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19813 WP No. 32052 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

A perusal of the impugned communication at Annexure-Q will indicate that the respondent no.1 - State purports to intimate the respondent no.2 - Corporation to remove the petitioner from service on account of alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner.

¶45

However, it is relevant to state that despite the specific statement made in the impugned communication at Annexure-Q, the respondent no.2 did not conduct any inquiry and without doing so, the respondent no.2 purports to repatriate the petitioner back to M/s.Mysore Paper Mills, which is no longer in existence as on today.

¶46

It is also an undisputed fact that the repeated representations submitted by the petitioner at Annexures-S, T, U, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE have not been considered by the respondents even till today. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the impugned communication at Annexure-Q dated 25.11.2022 and direct the concerned respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision on the aforesaid representations within a stipulated time frame.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19813 WP No. 32052 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In the result, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Petition is hereby allowed .

¶52

ii. The impugned communication at Annexure-Q dated 25.11.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶53

iii. The concerned respondents are directed to address the grievances of the petitioner and take appropriate decisions/ pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations at Annexures-S, T, U, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. v. Rajalakshmi, v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Rajalakshmi, 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindappa P K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Aishwarya Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh Kotari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Veerapulakeshi Vidyavardhaka Samsthe Vs the State of Karnataka

S.C.S. Parents Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H L Shivanand Vs State of Karnataka