- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.202155 OF 2021 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: PRASHANT S/O SAYABANNA JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, INDI, R/O INDI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, VIJAYAPUR-586109. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHYAT, VIJAYAPUR-586109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1; SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN ¸ÀASÉå:f¥ÀAC/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/¹Dgï-2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND MEMORANDUM DATED 30.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN NO. £ÀA.vÁ¥ÀAPÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/ºÉÆÃUÀĹ/©qÀÄUÀqÉ/¹Dgï-2021- 22 VIDE ANNEXURE -G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “(i)Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:f¥ÀAC/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/¹Dgï-2021-22 vide Annexure - F and memorandum dated 30.06.2021 issued by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 4th respondent in no. £ÀA.vÁ¥ÀAPÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/ºÉÆÃUÀĹ/©qÀÄUÀqÉ/¹Dgï-2021-22 vide Annexure -G. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by 2nd respondent in No.LOK/BGM-8859/2016/DRE-1 produced at Annexure-D. (iii) Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 8.6.2021 passed by the 1st respondent in No.GrApa-69/Gram Panchayat/2021 dated 08.06.2021 vide Annexure-E.” 2. Sri. G. G. Chagashetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant Engineer at Taluka Panchayat, Indi by the Zilla Panchayat, Vijaypura, in the year 2013. It is submitted that one Sri Ganapathi lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat, Vijaypura, complaining that there was large-scale misappropriation of funds in implementing the MGNREGA scheme. Based on the said complaint, the Ombudsman enquired and gave a clean chit to the petitioner as well as the other officials. It is further submitted that the said Ganapathi also gave a complaint before the Lokayukta and the Lokayukta without conducting any enquiry - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 recommended the State Government to terminate the petitioner's services, as he was an outsourced employee and not to appoint him on outsourced basis for a period of four years. Based on the said recommendation of the Lokayukta at Annexure-D, the Zilla Panchayat-respondent No. 3, passed an order dated 22.06.2021, terminating the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. It is submitted that the Ombudsman had given a clean chit on the same complaint of Sri Ganapathi. Therefore, recommendation of the Lokayukta and consequential termination order dated 22.06.2021 of respondent No.3 are illegal and require to be quashed solely on the ground that those orders were passed without following the principles of natural justice. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the State Government communicated a letter dated 08.06.2021 to respondent No.3, forwarding the report of the Lokayukta - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 dated 24.11.2020 with the request to take action as per the report and as per the law. 4. Shri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supports the recommendation of the Lokayukta dated 24.11.2020 and submits that the petitioner being an outsourced employee, the question of conducting any enquiry either by the Lokayukta or by the appointing authority would not arise. Hence, the impugned orders are strictly in consonance with law and seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, submits that respondents No. 3 and 4 have taken action as per Annexure-F, terminating the service of the petitioner based on the recommendation of the Lokayukta. Admittedly, as an outsourced employee, his tenure had come to an end long back and the petitioner was allowed to continue in the said post for some time. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant Engineer at Taluka Panchayat, Indi, Vijaypura District, from 10.09.2013 as an outsourced employee under the agency and he has been discharging duties to the satisfaction of the authority from the said date. The material available on record indicates that one Sri Ganapathi S/o Lalsingh Rathod, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat, Vijaypura, alleging misappropriation of funds by the officials, including the petitioner. The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry and reported that there was no merit in the complaint as per the order dated 17.10.2016. Thereafter, the said complainant, Sri Ganapathi, filed a complaint with respondent No.2-the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 a report to the State Government stating that it is a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending that Sri. Prashanth Jamadar (the petitioner herein), Technical Assistant Engineer, Taluka Panchayat, Indi, Dist:Vijaypura, (appointed on an outsourced basis) should be immediately terminated from outsourced employment and should not be appointed on outsourced basis for a period of four years. The said recommendation was forwarded by the State Government to the Zilla Panchayat through communication dated 08.06.2021. Admittedly, the Zilla Panchayat, without conducting any enquiry and solely based on the recommendation of the Lokayukta, terminated the services of the petitioner. 8. We are of the considered view that the recommendation of the Lokayukta, as well as the termination by respondent No.3 of the petitioner's service, is without any enquiry. As the petitioner is an outsourced employee and his services were admittedly for the initial - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 period of 23 months, the respondents No. 3 and 4, continued the services of the petitioner for different periods subsequently, even after the term of the employment came to an end. 9. We are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.06.2021 should be treated as discontinuation of the services of the petitioner as an outsourced employee without attaching any stigma to him. The recommendation of the Lokayukta dated 24.11.2020 and the impugned order dated 22.06.2021 were passed without any inquiry. In other words, we make it clear that the recommendation dated 24.11.2020 and the termination order dated 22.06.2021 should be read and understood as a discontinuation of the petitioner's service as an outsourced employee without any stigma, as those orders were passed without following the principles of natural justice. 10. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed off. It is made clear that it is for the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1874-DB WP No. 202155 of 2021 respondents No.3 and 4 to take appropriate decisions with regard to the re-appointment of the petitioner in their service as an outsourced employee in accordance with law. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:SI