- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AROGYA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR, MADAGI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023. 2. DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, ROOM NO.130, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOTE-587103. 3. DISTRICT SURVEYOR DISTRICT SURVEY OFFICE BAGALKOTE-587103. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR U.H.C. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, AROGYA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR, MADAGI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.28 11:28:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 AND: 1. SONALI C/O. BASAVARAJ BALLOLLI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DISTRICT PROGRAM MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, R/O: 12/B6 BTDA, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE-587102. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOTE-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANKIT R. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED. 10-12-2024 IN WP NO.104924/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The State authorities in the Health and Family Welfare Department are in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.104924/2024, whereunder the learned Single Judge - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 quashed the Official Memorandum dated 09.08.2024 relieving respondent No.1 from service. 2. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for appellants and learned counsel, Sri.Ankit R Desai for the respondent/caveator. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 3. The respondent No.1 was working as District Program Manager under the National Health Mission on contractual basis since 26.05.2017. Initially, respondent No.1 was appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year and was continued from time to time. Under impugned Official Memorandum dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure-D), the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Bagalkot relieved respondent No.1. Questioning the said Official Memorandum, respondent No.1 was before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Learned Single Judge only on the ground that no notice or enquiry is conducted by providing fair opportunity of hearing before relieving the respondent, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 allowed the writ petition directing the appellants herein to reinstate respondent No.1 with full backwages. Questioning the said order, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ appeal. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar would contend that respondent No.1 was on contract appointment for a period of one year and though he was continued from time to time, there was no specific order to continue the respondent as she was a temporary contractual appointee, who was relieved from duties under Annexure-D by an order of termination simplicitor. As the Official Memorandum relieving the respondent would not indicate any allegation or stigma, he submitted that the learned Single Judge is not justified in allowing the writ petition. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the learned Single Judge has not granted liberty to proceed against the respondent for misconduct, if any. It is also his submission that the learned Single Judge ought to have reserved liberty - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 to the appellants to conduct enquiry against the respondent when the learned Single Judge allowed the petition solely on the ground that respondent No.1 was not provided sufficient opportunity before relieving him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and would submit that the order of termination is not simplicitor, it is attached with stigma. 6. In that regard, learned counsel for respondent No.1 relies on document No.3 show-cause notice dated 26.07.2024 and also document No.6 dated 08.08.2024 produced along with I.A.No.4/2025 filed by appellants to contend that the order of termination is not an order simplicitor but it attaches stigma. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would also submit that a FIR is registered against respondent No.1 alleging appointment of ineligible candidates for various posts in the district. Therefore, he submits that when such serious allegations are made, it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 would be appropriate for the appellants to provide opportunity to the respondent. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition by quashing the Official Memorandum dated 09.08.2024 under which respondent No.1 is relieved from his duties. Though Annexure-D Official Memorandum dated 09.08.2024 would not indicate any allegation or stigma, however, a perusal of document No.3 dated 26.07.2024 as well as the document No.6 dated 08.08.2024 produced along with I.A.No.4/2025 for additional documents would indicate that the foundation or basis for relieving respondent No.1 is allegation of misconduct in the matter of appointment under National Health Commission for 2023-24. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 8. The show-cause notice dated 26.07.2024 produced as document No.3 reads as follows: “ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ CgÉÆÃUÀå C©üAiÀiÁ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è vÁªÀÅ 2023-24 gÀ°è UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ, CPÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ, QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr, ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ°ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛj, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄwÛj, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀªÀÄä ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ºÉÃUÉ ºÀt ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛj, CzÀPÁÌV F £ÉÆnÃ¸ï ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÉǼÀUÁV, vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ¥Éà ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2023-24 gÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀjAzÀ oÉêÀt ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ªÀÄÄ¢ævÀ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À®Ä F ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ, DzÀgÉ vÁªÀÅ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ CzÁªÀzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ DzÉñÀPÉÌ ªÀÄ£ÀßuÉ ¤ÃqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV w½AiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ, NHM PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£É ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀĪÀzÀÄ PɼÀºÀAvÀzÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¢gÀĪÀzÀÄ, gÁdåªÀÄlÖ¢AzÀ PÉýzÀAvÀºÀ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ¢gÀĪÀzÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄî¢üPÁjUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀzÉà ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ CzÀå PÀvÀðªÀåªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ NHM PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ PÀÄApvÀ ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 9. Document No.6 dated 08.08.2024 would also direct the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Bagalkot to take action against respondent No.1 in accordance with law and then to relieve her from the service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India and Another reported in AIR 1984 SC 636, while - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 considering a case of discharge from service, at paragraph No.12, has held as follows: “12. It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.” 10. In the case on hand also the relieving order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct, which is clear from the material on record i.e., show-cause notice dated 26.07.2024 and letter dated 08.08.2024 referred to above. 11. When the order of relieving or termination was quashed solely on the ground that no notice or enquiry or minimum opportunity is provided before the impugned order of termination or relieving, the learned Single Judge ought to have reserved liberty to the appellants to proceed further against respondent No.1 on providing sufficient - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14196-DB WA No. 100193 of 2025 opportunity or by conducting enquiry in accordance with law. 12. In the above circumstances, the order of learned Single Judge is confirmed with liberty to the appellants to proceed against respondent No.1 in accordance with law. 13. With the above, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SH CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47