- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14890 WP No. 104051 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104051 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: MEENAKSHI BETAGERI W/O. MALLAPPA BETAGERI AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. HEGGERI ROAD, BUVANESHWARI NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMRUTH VASANTH JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD TOWN, CDPO OFFICE, DHARWAD 580001. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD TOWN, CDPO OFFICE, DHARWAD 580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.2025 TERMINATING THE PETITIONER AS ANGANAWADI WORKER OF DIVATAGI ONI Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14890 WP No. 104051 of 2025 ANAGANWADI CENTRE, HUBBALLI WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THIS WP & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.104375/2025, disposed of on 29th October 2025, wherein this Court held as follows: 1. “The present writ petition concerns the termination of the petitioner, who was serving as an Anganwadi Worker in one of the Anganwadi Centres situated within the jurisdiction of Hubli-Dharwad. 2. Heard Smt.Amruth V. Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: 4. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker pursuant to a due selection process conducted by the respondents. During the course of her service, a complaint came to be registered against her, resulting in the registration of Crime No.10 of 2025. The said crime was based on certain newspaper reports and television broadcasts alleging irregularities in the distribution of nutritious food to pregnant women at the Anganwadi Centre. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14890 WP No. 104051 of 2025 5. Following the registration of the crime, the petitioner was taken into custody. Aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, the petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.100976 of 2025. The said criminal petition, along with connected matters, came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 25.02.2025, thereby quashing the very registration of the crime. 6. Consequent upon the quashment of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was released from custody on 03.03.2025. However, on the very same day, she was served with an order terminating her services. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature, as it makes reference to certain allegations without affording the petitioner any opportunity to defend herself. It is contended that no proper notice was issued, and even assuming a notice was issued, the petitioner was in judicial custody and hence had no opportunity to submit a reply. 8. The counsel further submits that since the sole basis for termination was the registration of the crime which now stands quashed the order of termination cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the petition, contending that the petitioner was involved in serious misconduct regarding the non-distribution of nutritious food meant for pregnant women. It is submitted that though the criminal case was quashed, it was on technical grounds, and such quashment does not absolve the petitioner of departmental misconduct. Hence, the respondents seek dismissal of the petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14890 WP No. 104051 of 2025 11. The facts, as narrated above, are largely undisputed. The petitioner was taken into custody on 18.02.2025. The learned HCGP, upon verification of records, submits that a notice dated 17.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon her to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated. The records also bear the petitioner’s signature acknowledging receipt of the said notice. 12. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was in custody from 18.02.2025 until 03.03.2025, the very day, the termination order was issued. Therefore, even if the petitioner had received the show cause notice, she was effectively incapacitated from submitting any reply during that period. 13. In such circumstances, the order of termination, which casts a serious stigma upon the petitioner, could not have been passed without affording her a fair opportunity to respond. The said order is thus violative of the principles of natural justice. 14. In view of the above, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of the learned HCGP, this Court deems it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her reply to the show cause notice. If no proper show cause notice has been issued, the respondent-authorities shall now issue one afresh. 15. For the purpose of enabling this process, the impugned order of termination shall stand quashed. However, such quashment shall not automatically result in the reinstatement of the petitioner. Her reinstatement and all consequential benefits shall depend upon the final decision of the competent authority after considering her reply. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14890 WP No. 104051 of 2025 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order of termination dated 03.03.2025 is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent, who shall issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iv. The petitioner shall submit her reply within four weeks from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. v. The competent authority shall thereafter consider the reply and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter. vi. Thus, the entire process from issuance of the notice to the passing of the final order, shall be concluded within fourteen weeks from the date of receipt of this order. All contentions of both parties, except those decided herein, are kept open.” 2. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment passed by this Court (supra), on all its fours and on the same reasons, the subject petition also stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60