- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23686 WP No. 30556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30556 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI B K KUMAR S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 4805 KANASU NILAYA, NEAR TEJU CORNER VIJAYANAGAR 4TH STAGE 2ND PHASE, MYSORE - 570 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.R S RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M RAJAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE - 570 024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEMANTHA P, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. CEST (2) CR.10/2019-20 DATED: 06.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SERVICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23686 WP No. 30556 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.11.2024 vide Annexure-A, passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Manpower Agency/contractors are entrusted with the supply of the man power to various piece work by the respondent. The petitioner was working as an operator at Vani Vilas Water Supply and Sewage Board, Treatment Plant, Mysore City Corporation from 2004. The petitioner was hired for the above work. When he was working as a Pump Operator, the impugned order has been passed terminating the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the impugned order – Annexure-A, the respondent has made serious allegations against the petitioner. Without giving any personal hearing, the impugned order has been passed terminating the petitioner from the service. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23686 WP No. 30556 of 2024 impugned order is stigmatic in nature. The same is passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DR.VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent filed statement of objections and contended that after conducting the preliminary enquiry, the Committee has submitted a report, on the basis of the report, the impugned order has been passed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. In the impugned termination order passed on 06.11.2024, there is a serious allegation against the petitioner. The respondent has not given any personal hearing to the petitioner to explain his case. Even, no notice has been given and no personal hearing was given to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23686 WP No. 30556 of 2024 petitioner. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of DR.VIJAYAKUMARAN (supra) held as below: “11. In the present case, all the three elements are attracted, as a result of which it must follow that the stated order is ex facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules. As a matter of fact, the Internal Complaints Committee had recommended to proceed against the appellant appropriately but the Executive Council proceeded under the mistaken belief that in terms of Clause 7 of the contract, it was open to the Executive Council to terminate the services of the appellant without a formal regular inquiry as per the service rules. Indisputably, in the present case, the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in reference to the complaints received from the girl students about the alleged misconduct committed by the appellant, which allegations were duly inquired into in a formal inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant and culminated with the report recording finding against the appellant with recommendation to proceed against him.” 7. On the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition requires to be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23686 WP No. 30556 of 2024 8. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 vide Annexure-A passed by the respondent is quashed. (iii) The respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner into service and leave the question regarding back-wages, placing him under suspension and initiating departmental or regular inquiry as per the service rules, to be taken forward by the authority concerned, in accordance with law. (iv) In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56