- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION No.2991 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: VIJAYENDRA H.S. S/O LATE H.N. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS No.365, IUDP LAYOUT BABU JAGAJEEVANARAM NAGAR CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH D.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY AND NODAL OFFICER MAHATHMA GANDHI NREGA SCHEME ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. 4. THE MANAGER SRI UDYOG ENTERPRISES No.252, 4TH MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 2ND BLOCK, IN FRONT OF DR. RAJKUMAR SAMADHI BENGALURU -560 096. REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER No.CR/2024-25/45843 DATED 12-11-2024 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA, WHICH IS FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE - A ALSO BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REINSTATE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER WITH THEM. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER Petitioner has challenged the Order bearing No.CR/2024-25/45843 dated 12.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1 by which, the services of the petitioner was terminated. 2. Respondent No.1, in the course of implementation of Mahathma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, had invited applications from man power providing agencies for various posts in Chithradurga District. Accordingly, petitioner was referred by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 respondent No.4 to respondent No.1. The petitioner was working as a technical assistant at Hosadurga, Chithradurga District. 3. (i) Petitioner contends that the Secretary of Rural and Panchayathraj Department formed a Committee to inspect the material bills submitted regarding certain work allotted under Mahathma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 02.05.2024 to explain certain deficiencies in preparing the material bills in respect of 40 projects at Dharmapura Grama Panchayath. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that in every Project Measurement Book, the Special Mandatory Redemption amount was mentioned and after verification it was uploaded in the Google Form. Respondent No.3, thereafter, issued an office order dated 24.05.2024 deputing various technical staff to different places. The petitioner was also deputed to take charge of Imangala, Harthikote - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 and Gannayakanahalli Grama Panchayaths lying in Hiriyuru Taluk. (ii) The petitioner claimed that he did not commit any mistake while implementing the project and was not negligent. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a request to respondent No.1 to transfer him from Hiriyuru to Chitradurga. Respondent No.3, thereafter, deputed the petitioner to take charge of Harthikote, Hosayalanadu and Yaraballi Grama Panchayaths in Hiriyuru Taluk. While petitioner was working at Hiriyuru, he was served with a show cause notice dated 08.11.2024 calling for explanation regarding certain audio clips circulated in social media where the petitioner was found demanding 4% of contract value from the contractors. (iii) Petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a request to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to permit him to work but was terminated from service by the impugned Order. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 4. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the termination of the petitioner is on the ground that he had failed to carry out certain entries in the measurement book and that he had claimed 4% of the contract value for processing the bills in respect of a contract of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded to a contractor under the scheme. He therefore contends that respondents must have conducted a semblance of enquiry before terminating the petitioner. He also contends that petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct or negligence in his duty and therefore, impugned order is illegal, colourable and has to be set- aside. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner was deputed by the 4th respondent to work at the office of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was deputed to work at different places in Hiriyuru Taluk. It appears that respondent came to know of certain lapses - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10880 WP No. 2991 of 2025 in the performance of duty by the petitioner. They also came to know about a demand made by the petitioner from the contractors to process the bills. Respondent No.1 has therefore passed the impugned Order terminating the services of the petitioner and handed him back to respondent No.4. 8. The petitioner is not appointed on regular basis, but is through man power supplying agency. If respondent No.1 is not satisfied with the work done by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is always entitled to return the services of the petitioner to respondent No.4. 9. This is precisely what is done by respondent No.1 by passing the impugned Order. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned Order. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30