- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 36322 OF 2019 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: L. SOMESHEKAR REDDY S/O. LAKSHMANA REDDY H.S., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALGANAHALLI VILLEGE, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (EL), BENGALURU RURAL AREA ZONE, NO.1-4, I T 5TH FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR, BESCOM, BENGALURU-560 044. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EL) O & M CIRCLE, M.B. ROAD, BESCOM, OPPOSITE YAMAHA SHOWROOM, KOLAR-563 101. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), O & M DIVISION, BB ROAD, BESCOM, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) O & M SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, GOWRIBIDUNUR, GOWRIBIDUNUR-561 208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 6. SMT. SOWBHAGAMMA I/C AAO, GOWRIBIDUNUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, BESCOM, GOWRIBIDANUR-581 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R-3 AND 5 AND ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY QUASHING THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 05.07.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K, BY R-3 KOLAR HQ R-5 UNIT OFFICE R-3 S E ELECTRICIAL BESCOM KOLAR DATED 5.7.2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The Petitioner, terminated contractual Grama Vidhuth Prathinidhi is before this Court, questioning the order dated 05.07.2017, whereunder the service of the petitioner is terminated in terms of the contract. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to restore the petitioner into service and compensate the petitioner for loss of pay during the termination period. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chandrashekar K.C., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Vikram Unni Rajagopal, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as a Grama Vidhuth Prathinidhi in the year 2003 and he worked as such till 2017 on contract basis. He submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, petitioner remained absent for two months and for having remained absent, the petitioner services are terminated without providing any opportunity or conducting enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 issued with show cause notice on 10.04.2017 and thereafter on 16.05.2017 to explain as to why he should not be terminated in accordance with the contract for having remained absent to duty. He further submits that petitioner has submitted reply as at Annexure-H dated 01.06.2017 and also sought permission to join duty on 01.06.2017. It is contended that without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, impugned O.M. dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-K) is passed terminating the services of the petitioner. He submits that, the order at Annexure-K dated 05.07.2017 attaches stigma and when stigmatic order is passed, the petitioner would be entitled for an opportunity. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 would submit that in terms of the contract, the petitioner is issued with show-cause notice twice. The petitioner remained unauthorized absent which hampered the work of the respondent, as such a decision was taken to terminate the service of the petitioner. He also brings to the notice of this Court that petitioner was terminated earlier by order dated 04.07.2015 for causing loss to the respondents and subsequently, on his representation he was provided one more - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 opportunity to work in the respondent-Organization by reinstating him by order dated 27.02.2017. It is submitted that on reinstating in February 2017 again, the petitioner remained unauthorized absent. Therefore, impugned order is passed which according to him, is in accordance with law. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for my consideration is:- "As to whether the order of termination at Annexure-K dated 05.07.2017 requires interference at the hands of this Court ?" 6. Answer to the above point would be in the 'negative' for the following reasons and the petitioner would not be entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged as Grama Vidhuth Prathinidhi by the respondents in the year 2003 and continued till his termination. Admittedly, the nature of appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner remained absent subsequent to February 2017. Annexure-D show cause dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 10.04.2017 would indicate that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from 18.03.2017 and was called upon to submit his reply. Show cause notice dated 16.05.2017 at Annexure-G indicates that petitioner submitted an application for leave on 19.04.2017, as there was no leave at his credit, the same was rejected. As the petitioner remained unauthorized absent, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply as to why his service should not be terminated in terms of clause 8.1 of the contract. 8. The medical certificate produced by the petitioner dated 31.05.2017 indicates that he was advised to take rest for Typhoid fever. In a contract work, employee has no right to seek continuation of work, contrary to the contract. If the petitioner failed to adhere to the contractual obligations and if remained absent which is admitted in the instant case, no fault could be found with the respondents’ action in terminating the petitioner after issuing notice. Mentioning unauthorized absence which is a fact, in the impugned order would not amount to attaching stigma. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:982 WP No. 36322 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6978/2024 dated 12.06.2024 to say that termination attaches stigma. On careful reading of the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 05.07.2017, it is seen that the petitioner is terminated for his unauthorized absence in terms of the contract and it would not attach any stigma. The decision on which the petitioner places reliance would state that, if termination is with stigma, then enquiry would be necessary, hence the same would not assist the petitioner. 10. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, accordingly, Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25