- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B.R. CHALUVARAJ S/O. B.C. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. S - 56 RASHI NILAYA, 6TH CROSS NEAR PUMP HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR MANDYA - 571 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED NO.27, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL SUB URB POST BOX NO. 5531 PUNE NATIONAL HIGH WAY BANGALORE - 560 055. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 35732/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No. 35732/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT HEREIN AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35732/2019 (S-DIS) [impugned order], whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition captioned 'B.R. Chaluvaraj v. The Managing Director' impugning an order dated 14.06.2019 (Termination order), whereby his services with the respondent Company – Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited [KSDL] – was terminated. 3. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Officer, (Production & Maintenance), in terms of an appointment order dated 26.05.2014. The appellant had applied for the said post pursuant to a notification dated 16.10.2012 issued by KSDL inviting applications for the said post. Undisputedly, the appointment letter makes it clear that a candidate shall not be a dismissed employee of Government / Semi-Government / Private Institution. And if it was found that the candidate had furnished false information, he would be liable to be removed. 4. The appellant had not disclosed that prior to his appointment, he was dismissed as an employee of 'Raithara Vyavasayothpanna Maraata Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mandya' [hereafter ‘the Society’], in terms of a dismissal order dated 10.12.2011. The appellant's dismissal from the service was punitive and on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 allegation that he had misappropriated a sum of `11,56,866/- from his employer. A criminal case had also been registered [Case No.94/2010] under Section 408 IPC before the Mandya City West Police Station and a charge-sheet had been filed before the Court of the Addl. CJ & JMFC, Mandya [C.C.No.131/2013]. 5. After the appellant had been appointed by KSDL, enquiries were made with the police authorities under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 for obtaining the conduct and antecedent report. The police authorities informed KSDL regarding the pending case. 6. The appellant's explanation was sought and the same was examined. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to issue an order dated 21.01.2015 releasing the appellant from the post of Junior Officer (P & M), with immediate effect. 7. Aggrieved by his termination from the services, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P.No.3517/2015. He contested the allegation that there was any suppression on his part. The learned Single Judge examined the information as required to be furnished by the petitioner. Under Sl.No.17 of the application, the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 was required to respond as to whether he was "Convicted for any criminal or other offences? Yes / No. If Yes, give full details in a separate sheet." Apparently, the appellant had neither responded in the affirmative nor in the negative. It was thus alleged that he had suppressed material facts. 8. According to the KSDL, the appellant could be terminated from services without holding an enquiry, as the probationary period had not ended. This court, faulted the said reasoning. The court noted that since there was stigma attached to the appellant’s dismissal, it was necessary for KSDL to hold an enquiry. Accordingly, the termination order dated 21.01.2015 was set aside and the appellant was reinstated in service, pending enquiry. 9. Thereafter, the KSDL appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry into the Articles of Charge, which were served to the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 06.02.2016. It found that the charges were not established. Enquiry Officer had accepted the appellant's contention that he had not given any information against Sl.No.17 of the application, as he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 had not been convicted of any offence. Although criminal case was pending against the appellant, he had not been convicted. 10. The Managing Director of KSDL did not accept the aforementioned enquiry report. In the meanwhile certain material documents regarding the conduct of the appellant had been received from his previous employer – the Society – which had dismissed him from service on account of allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. The Managing Director of KSDL was of the view that a fresh look was warranted, in light of the documents received. Accordingly, a retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry. 11. The appellant challenged the initiation of a fresh enquiry by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.19505/2016. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.01.2018. The learned Single Judge had faulted KSDL for instituting a fresh enquiry, without framing a set of fresh charges. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was not bound by the enquiry report and was free to disagree with the same and pass the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 order after affording the delinquent officer of an opportunity of being heard. However, if a fresh enquiry was instituted on the basis of additional material, it was necessary to frame a fresh set of charges and furnish the additional material to the delinquent officer. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order initiating fresh enquiry. However, the court also observed that the KSDL would be free to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry against the appellant, in accordance with law. 12. Pursuant to the said liberty, KSDL initiated a fresh enquiry. Fresh Articles of charges were framed and served. The fresh Articles of Charges also included allegations pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Society [appellant's previous employer 'Raithara Vyavasayothpanna Maraata Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mandya']. 13. The enquiry proceedings culminated in Enquiry Officer furnishing an enquiry report dated 20.04.2019 holding that the charges leveled against the appellant were proved. Thereafter on 07.05.2019, KSDL issued a second show cause notice furnishing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 the report affording the appellant an opportunity to respond to the same. 14. The appellant made a representation on 11.05.2019 requesting the KSDL to furnish certain documents. In the meanwhile, by an order dated 03.06.2019, the criminal proceedings which were instituted against the appellant (C.C.No.131/2013), and were pending before the Additional CJ & JMFC, Mandya were quashed by an order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5280/2014. 15. On 14.06.2019, the KSDL issued an order terminating the appellant from its services. 16. The appellant challenged the said dismissal order by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.35732/2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned order. 17. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was liable to be removed from service, as there was no dispute that the appellant had been dismissed from the services of the society, in terms of the dismissal order dated 10.12.2011. Further, the learned Single Judge did not accept the contention that the petitioner was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 not afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant earnestly contended that the earlier enquiry was substantially on the same charges that were framed subsequently. He contended that since the first Enquiry Officer had found that charges were not proved, it was not open for KSDL to institute a fresh enquiry on the same charges. 19. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention, for essentially two reasons. First, that the enquiry report furnished by the First Enquiry Officer holding that the charges were not proved, was not accepted by KSDL. As held by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 08.01.2018 passed in writ petition being W.P.No.19505/2016, the Disciplinary Authority was not bound by the enquiry report and could reject the same. Undisputedly, the Disciplinary Authority could have proceeded to pass an adverse order after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. However, it was also open for the Disciplinary Authority to institute a fresh enquiry by framing fresh charges in case if there was any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 further material that required to be enquired into. However, fresh enquiry could not be instituted without framing fresh Articles of charge on the basis of additional material available with the authority. Although the Disciplinary Authority had not accepted the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges were not proved, the concerned authority (Managing Director KSDL) had decided to institute a fresh enquiry. This was for the reason that there was additional material, having a bearing on the allegations of misconduct, which was received from the Society (the appellant's previous employer). The fresh Articles of Charges contained extensive reference to the material received from the appellant's previous employer. 20. The aforesaid material clearly established that the order dated 10.12.2011 had been passed dismissing the appellant from the services of the society, based on an enquiry report. The appellant was fully aware that once he had been dismissed from services, he would not be eligible for Government employment. However, he had suppressed his dismissal while applying for the post of Junior Officer (P & M) in KSDL. The Enquiry Officer had found that the allegation of suppression of material facts was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 established and the allegations made in the Articles of Charges were proved. The appellant was dismissed from service based on the said findings. 21. There is no dispute that the appellant's appointment letter clearly indicated that the same was on the condition that he had not been dismissed as an employee of a Government / semi- Government / private institution. The appointment letter also clarified that if it was found that false information had been submitted, the appellant would be liable for removal from services. Since there is no dispute that the appellant had been dismissed as an employee of the society prior to his appointment with KSDL on the allegation of misappropriation of a sum of `11,56,866/-, the appellant's appointment, was liable to be cancelled. The fact that he had been dismissed from service, was clearly a material fact which was required to be disclosed. The appellant's appointment was conditional on him not being terminated from service by his previous employer. 22. In view of the above, the order dismissing the appellant from service, cannot be faulted. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB WA No. 464 of 2025 23. We concur with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the appellant's challenge to the order of dismissal from service. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 24. The pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27