- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.101743 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. DYAMANNA SARURU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: ATTENDER AT DISTRICT AYUSH HOSPITAL, HUNGUND, R/O: SECTION NO.42, PLOT NO. 23, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE – 587102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT AYUSH AROGYA RAKSHA SAMITHI, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE – 587 101. 2. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICE, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, BAGALKOTE – 587 101. 3. THE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, HUNGUND, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.22 11:00:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. GAaAKABA/C.S.S.SIBANDHI/2023-24 DATED 21/04/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. TASAAAAAHU/ C.S.S. SIBANDHI/ 06/2023-24 DATED 24/04/2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK IN SERVICE AND PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY FROM THE MONTH OF MAY 2023 UPTO HER REINSTATEMENT BACK TO THE WORK AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDERS WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.04.2023, by which, the services of the petitioner stood terminated. The petitioner seeks a consequential mandamus directing reinstatement into service and all consequential benefits to be paid on such reinstatement. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Prashant S. Hosamani, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Keerthilatha R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondents. 3. The petitioner is appointed as an Attender in the District Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Bagalkote on 25.07.2012. The petitioner then, is transferred to Hunagund, at which point in time, it transpires that the petitioner expresses her desire to contest the ensuing elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, 2023. This lands the petitioner in trouble. Though the petitioner did not contest the election, the intention itself was enough for the State to terminate her services in terms of the order dated 21.04.2023. In furtherance of the order dated 21.04.2023, a communication directing to relieve the petitioner from service was passed on 24.04.2023. Calling in question the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. 4. Learned counsel Sri Prashant S. Hosamani appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 that the allegation against the petitioner as could be gathered from the show cause notice is, that her intention to contest assembly election and not the actual contest. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner though a contract employee could not have been terminated without at the outset holding an enquiry, in terms of the law. 5. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission to contend that there are several allegations against the petitioner. She would take this Court through plethora of documents appended to the statement of objections to buttress her submission that allegations galore against the petitioner, but would admit the fact that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 7. The petitioner herein appointed as Attendor in District Government Aryurvedic Hospital, Bagalkote on 25.07.2012, is not in dispute, nor the aftermath. What drives the petitioner to this Court is an order of termination dated 21.04.2023 and consequent relieving her from services on 24.04.2023. The order of termination on 21.04.2023 reads as follows: ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É :- PÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀgÀPÁj DAiÀÄĪÉÃðzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæ, ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ E°è ¤AiÉÆÃd£É ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛ ²æêÀÄw «dAiÀÄ®Qëöäà ¸ÀgÀÆgÀ ¹ÛçÃgÉÆÃUÀ DmÉAqÀgï KªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:11-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉAiÀÄ zÀ±Àð£À ¢£À¥ÀwÛPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉÊPï AiÀiÁ¥ï £À°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ 2023gÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è üÀV ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ ¥ÀPÉëÃvÀgÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁV PÀtPÉÌ E¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÄgÀħ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.01.2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ ¥ÀvÀÛ ¸À°èPÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀAiÀiÁZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ°zÉÝãÉAzÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀPÁðj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄÄ C²¸ÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ EzÀ£ÀÄß wêÀæªÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¹ F PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ ¹§âA¢ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀtPÁÌV ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:13-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ ¤Ãr, £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 24 UÀAmÉAiÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ RÄzÀÄÝ ºÁdgÁV °TvÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä w½¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ RÄzÀÄÝ ¹éÃPÀj¹ ¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃnù£À°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:11-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉAiÀÄ zÀ±Àð£À ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀlUÉÆAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥À©èPï AiÀiÁ¥ï £À°è EzÀÝAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ 2023 gÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ©Ã¼ÀV ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ ¥ÀPÉëÃvÀgÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁV * ¸Àà¢üð¸ÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°èPÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀAiÀiÁZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ°zÉÝãÉAzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw ¥ÀwæPÁ ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄ£ÁßUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¥ÀwæPÁUÉÆö×AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÉÃ¸ï §ÄPÀÌ SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇøÀÖ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ²æêÀÄw. «dAiÀÄ®Qëäà ¸ÀgÀÆgÀ ¹ÛæÃgÉÆÃUÀ CmÉAqÀgï EªÀgÀÄ PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ïUÉ, °TvÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼É¢gÀĪÀ PÁgÀt F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæªÁV ¥Àjù°¹ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀĺÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀÅ£ÀðªÀ¸Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÅ£Àð¤ªÀiÁðt ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ, PÀȵÁÚ ªÉÄîÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£É ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢ ¤ÃrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ «ªÀgÀtqÀAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ DAiÀÄĵï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¥ÀvÀÛ ¸ÀA.DAiÀÄĵï/07/LE¹(3)/ 2015-16 ¢:21-08-2019 zÀ°èAiÀÄ (11) gÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¨sÀAzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DAiÀÄĵï DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤tðAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè DAiÀÄĵï DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«Äw CzsÀåPÀëgÁzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12.30 WÀAmÉUÉ f¯Áè DAiÀÄÄµï ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉAiÀįÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAr¹ J¯Áè «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀĺÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ª¥ÀÄ£ÀðªÀ¸Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÄ£Àð¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ, PÀȵÁÚ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ AiÉÆÃd£É ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄð£À J®è CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àjò°¹ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀað¸À¯ÁV, ²æêÀÄw «dAiÀÄ®Qëäà ¸ÀgÀÆgÀ ¹ÛæÃgÉÆÃUÀ CmÉAqÀgï PÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀgÀPÁj DAiÀÄĪÉÃðzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæ ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ E°è ¤AiÉÆÃd£É ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ CªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è C²¸ÀÄÛ ªÀvÀð£É PÀAlħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, DAiÀÄĵï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:DAiÀÄĵï/07/LE¹(3)/2015-16 ¢-21-08-2019 (1) µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¨sÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀvÀðªÀå¢AzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¢AzÀ vÀPÀët ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DAiÀÄĵï AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wªÀiÁ𤹠¤tðAiÀÄ CAVÃPÀj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀA: fDCPÁªÁ/¹.J¸ï.J¸ï ¹§âA¢/2023-24 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.04.2023 DzÉñÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw «dAiÀÄ®Qëä zÁå ¸ÀgÀÆgÀ ¹ÛæÃgÉÆÃUÀ CmÉAqÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðj DAiÀÄĪÉÃðzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ (¸ÀPÁðj DAiÀÄĪÉÃðzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæ, ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ E°èUÉ ¤AiÉÆÃd£É) EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß F vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ 8. The order is indicative of the fact that the petitioner had expressed her desire or wanted to contest elections for ensuing Legislative Assembly, and therefore - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 on the score of it being violative of the conditions of the contract, at the time of appointment and the termination comes about. The State has sought to defend the order of termination by enclosing plethora of documents of all allegations or complaints against the petitioner. If that be so, it becomes an order of termination on certain misconduct. If it is an order of termination of misconduct, the termination could not have been passed without at the outset holding a regular enquiry against the petitioner as the order being stigmatic. Though the petitioner is an employee on contract, she has rendered considerable service to respondent which is 11 years prior to the order of termination. Therefore, the petitioner had acquired a quasi permanent status. In that light, an enquiry on such misconduct or the order of termination which was on the face of it stigmatic could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. The issue need not retain in this Court for long for dealt into the matter. This Court, considering an the identical circumstance in Smt. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 Sharadha L. Doddamani vs. State of Karnataka and others1 has held as follows: “17. The petitioner was appointed as Accountant in the year 2008 albeit, on a temporary basis. She had completed more than 10 years of service at the time when she was issued a show cause notice. Therefore, though she was not a permanent employee, she had acquired a quasi permanent status and termination of her service is on the score that she has been unauthorisedly absent and such absence has hindered functioning of the Council. Therefore, it is on allegations. If termination is on allegations, even to a temporary employee, an inquiry in the least will have to be conducted, failure of which, would become violative of the principles of natural justice, as the employer is terminating an employee on account of allegations without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NAR SINGH PAL v. UNION OF INDIA wherein the Apex Cout has held as follows: “6. The appellant, no doubt, was a casual labour but as observed by the Tribunal, he had acquired temporary status with effect from 1-10- 1989. Once an employee attains the “temporary” status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to the constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and other articles dealing with 1 W.P.No.47144/2018 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 services under the Union of India. A perusal of the impugned order by which the services of the appellant were terminated indicates that since the appellant had beaten one Mahender Singh with an iron rod and had also bitten him with his teeth on 20-4- 1992 at 8.00 p.m. while the said Mahender Singh was on duty as Gateman, Tax Bhawan, Agra, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect. Thus the services were terminated on account of the allegation of assault made against the appellant. This Court on 24-1-2000 passed the following order: “Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is granted six weeks' time to seek instructions whether regular departmental proceedings were taken in this matter or not.” 8. The documents which have been placed before us pertain to the preliminary inquiry made against the appellant in which the statement of certain persons who had seen the incident was recorded. The services of the appellant were, thereafter, terminated by paying him the retrenchment compensation through a cheque along with the order dated 20-5-1992. The order having been passed on the basis of a preliminary inquiry and not on the basis of a regular departmental enquiry without issuing a charge- sheet or giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, cannot be sustained. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 10. Applying the above principles, the order in the instant case, cannot be treated to be a simple order of retrenchment. It was an order passed by way of punishment and, therefore, was an order of dismissal which, having been passed without holding a regular departmental enquiry, cannot be sustained.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. The Apex Court considers an order of retrenchment of a temporary employee and holds that if it is on account of allegations even against a temporary employee, enquiry was a must. The Apex Court so directs on the score that a temporary employee being in the said status of employment for a long time acquires quasi permanent status and therefore, punitive action cannot be without compliance with principles of natural justice. 19. If the content of the order of termination is stigmatic, such stigma to be effaced and the employee must have the opportunity to defend such action. It is an admitted fact in the case at hand that no inquiry is conducted. All that the State is seeking before this bench is liberty to hold an inquiry. The submission merits acceptance, as it is in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments.” 9. In the light of the petitioner similarly placed as she is also a contract employee, who has served the respondent for about 11 years, the findings rendered by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:666 WP No. 101743 of 2024 this Court would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand as well. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with 50% backwages. (iii) The respondent-State is reserved liberty to hold an enquiry on the aforesaid allegation, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, again in accordance with law. (iv) The enquiry shall be held only if a need for it still subsists. (v) All consequential benefits shall be determined to be sequential of the result of the enquiry. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43