- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100269 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE DISTRICT AYUSH AROGYA RAKSHA SAMITHI, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587101. 2. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICE, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, BAGLKOTE-587101. 3. THE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL HUNGUND, DISTRICT BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, HUNGUND, DISTRICT BAGALKOTE-587118. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA) AND: SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. DYAMANNA SARURU AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ATTENDER AT DISTRICT AYUSH HOSPITAL, HUNGUND, R/O SECTION NO.42, PLOT NO.23, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADYOJAT R. BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. WP NO.101743/2024 DATED 16.01.2025 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The State is in appeal calling in question the correctness of the order of learned Single Judge passed in WP No.101743/2024. By virtue of the said order, the order of termination dated 21.04.2023 passed by the respondent in writ proceedings, was set-aside. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of termination dated 21.04.2023, directed the reinstatement of employee with 50% backwages. Further, liberty was reserved to the State, who is employer, to hold an enquiry as regards the allegations against the petitioner/employee in accordance with law. It was further ordered that all consequential benefits to be determined as a consequence of result of enquiry. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ proceedings for the sake of convenience. 3. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner was working as contractual employee under the respondent and was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025 appointed as an Attender in the District Govt. Hospital on temporary basis on 25.07.2012. Subsequently, it appears that the State has issued show-cause notice as to why disciplinary action ought not to be taken against the petitioner insofar as certain acts of the petitioner in connection with certain acts in line with her intention to contest the Legislative Assembly election. It is further part of the records and admitted that the reply was made out to the show-cause notice. The respondent/State by order dated 21.04.2023 had terminated the service of the petitioner, who was on temporary contractual engagement. 4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the order of termination was without enquiry and after a detailed reasoning, noticing that the petitioner had rendered about 11 years of service prior to termination and holding that the termination without enquiry which was stigmatic and could not have been passed without enquiry, has allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India1. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is unable to controvert the legal position that even contractual employee cannot be terminated by stigmatic order without enquiry. A perusal of the order at Annexure-D records a finding that the termination was on the ground of misconduct. If that were to be so, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument submits that the order of learned Single Judge may be affirmed while giving up the claim for backwages. Taking note of the same, the order of learned Single Judge is upheld, except the direction at clause II of the operative portion of the impugned order relating to award of 50% of backwages, which stands set-aside in light of stand of learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument. 7. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: 1 (2000) 3 SCC 588 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025 ORDER a) The Writ Appeal stands disposed off; b) The appellant/State to take steps for reinstatement of respondent/employee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30