- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10604 WP No. 106060 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106060 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJ MELAVANKI, S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA MELAVANKI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD (PLATOON COMMANDAR), PRESENTLY “NIL”, AT POST: HUNASIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591153. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION, (PARA POLICE FORCE SERVICES), VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE AND COMMANDANT GENERAL HOME GUARDS, STATE OF KARNATAKA NO.85, ANNASWAMY MUDALIYAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560042. 3. THE COMMANDANT OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, HOME GUARDS BELAGAVI-PIN CODE-590009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10604 WP No. 106060 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,I. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/12/2022 PASSED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO. CqÀ½vÀ(2) 74/¹fM//2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.II. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NARRATED FACTS AND GROUNDS TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30/12/2022 passed by 2nd and 3rd respondent bearing no. CqÀ½vÀ(2) 74/¹fM//2016-17 vide ANNEXURE-A in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue any other appropriate order/s as this Hon’ble court deems fit in view of the above narrated facts and grounds to meet the end of justice. 3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that he has been terminated from service as a Home Guard, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10604 WP No. 106060 of 2025 without holding any enquiry and solely based on an anonymous complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of the petitioner is in violation of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Home Guard Rules, 1963, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos . 1 to 3, and perused the records. 6. Rule 8 of the Karnataka Home Guard Rules, 1963 reads as follows : “Term of Office:- The term of office of a member of the Home Guards shall be three years: Provided that if any such member if sound to be medically unfit to continue as a member of Home Guards, his appointment may be terminated before the expiry of the term of office. Provided further that a member of Home Guards shall after the expiry of his term be eligible for reappointment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10604 WP No. 106060 of 2025 Provided also that the services of a member of the Home Guards may be terminated at any time by the Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case may be, after giving one month’s notice.” 7. A perusal of the above would indicate that the appointment of a Home Guard shall be for a temporary period, which may be extended from time to time, and the services of a Home Guard may be terminated at any time by the Commandant or the Commandant General after giving one month notice. 8. A perusal of the above rule clearly indicates that the appointment of a Home Guard is temporary, and the services may be terminated at any time, by the competent authority, after giving one month’s notice. Thus, the rule contemplates termination without cause, so long as it is supported by one month notice. In such circumstances, the requirement to hold an enquiry does not arise, as the termination is not punitive in nature. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10604 WP No. 106060 of 2025 9. In the present case, one-month notice has not been issued to the petitioner prior to termination. In such event, the petitioner would be entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, the following: ORDER I. The writ petition stands dismissed. II. However, respondent No.3 is directed to pay to the petitioner one month’s salary in lieu of notice, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Karnataka Home Guard Rules, 1963 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18