- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 21586 OF 2023 (S-DE) BETWEEN: K. V. MANI S/O. LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1291/1, 2ND ROAD, KURUBARAPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMARA K G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING NO. 16, 2ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD, P. B. NO. 5309, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MALUR-563 130. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. T SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 QUASH THE ORDER VIDE BEARING ORDER NO.KRU.MAA.E./STAFF/CCA.36/2018-19, DTD 09.03.2021 ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R1 BY DISMISSING FROM THE SERVICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-A dated 09.03.2021 issued by respondent No.1, wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of the petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was working as a Marketing Assistant in the respondent's agency for a period of 26 years. The petitioner was suffering from various ailments such as Diabetes, Hepatitis, gastritis, and also and he - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 has remained unauthorised absent due to his medical condition. The respondents issued several notices to the petitioner in this regard, but the petitioner was unable to reply to those notices as a result of his continued medical condition. The petitioner submitted a medical certificate for his unauthorised absence. The respondents issued a notice dated 16.02.2021 via paper publication to reply within 15 days. But, the petitioner has not come across the notice and as a result the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2021, terminating the petitioner from service. It is contended that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner was working as a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 'Market Supervisor' with respondent No.2 i.e., APMC, Malur. On 21.09.2017, the petitioner had telephone with the then Secretary of APMC, Malur, and orally requested two days leave on medical grounds, and thereafter the petitioner remained unauthorised absent from 28.09.2017 to 31.01.2019. Respondent No.2 issued several notices dated 28.09.2017, 09.10.2017, 24.04.2018 and 02.05.2018, calling upon the petitioner to resume his duty, but there was no response from the petitioner and the officers of the Respondent, tried to contact the petitioner through cell phone but same was switched off. The petitioner neither respond to any notices nor appeared for the job. 5. Respondent No.1 issued a notice along with the charges framed against the petitioner on 26.12.2019, under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'CCA Rules'). The petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 did not reply to the charge memo. Respondent No.1 appointed the inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry officer issued a notice to the petitioner. Despite the notice, the petitioner remained unrepresented. The inquiry officer based on the records produced by the respondent has submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice along with the inquiry report got published in the local newspaper calling upon the petitioner to submit an explaination. Despite taking out the paper publication, the petitioner did not reply to show cause notice. The disciplinary authority accepting the enquiry report, passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is in accordance with law and disciplinary authority has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Hence, the order passed by respondent No.1 is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 in accordance with law. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absent on medical ground, and later on he has submitted a medical certificate to show that he was suffering from ailments. Hence, he could not be able to attend the duty. He submitted that no notices were served on the petitioner regarding an enquiry. The inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and also the disciplinary authority before passing an impugned order no show cause notice was issued. Hence, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 8. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 issued several notices to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to report for the duty. Notices were issued on the registered address, shown in the Aadhaar card and service book. He submits that the mahazar was drawn to show that respondent No.2 had taken all measures to serve notice. Despite of it, the petitioner did not come forward to receive the notice and copy of the notice was affixed on the addresses i.e., on the compound wall of the house of the petitioner, address shown in the Aadhaar card, service register etc. He submitted that an enquiry was conducted, the article of charges were issued alleging that charges levied against him are proved, stating that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent from 28.09.2017 to 31.01.2019. The petitioner did not reply to the article of charges. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 9. The respondent appointed an inquiry officer and the inquiry officer also issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted that the charges levied against the petitioner are proved. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working under respondent No.2 as the Marketing Supervisor. The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 28.09.2017 to 31.01.2019. Respondent No.2 issued several notices dated 28.09.2017, 09.10.2017, 24.04.2018 and 02.05.2018, calling upon the petitioner to resume his duty. There was no response from the petitioner. The official of respondent No.2 tried to contact the petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 through his mobile, the same was switched off. The official of respondent No.2 even visited the residence of the petitioner, but the petitioner had vacated his house. The petitioner was not reachable by respondent No.2 even after their best efforts. Respondent No.2 through letters dated 04.11.2017, 22.05.2018 and 30.07.2018 intimated respondent No.1, who is the head of all the APMC's in the State of Karnataka. Respondent No.2 issued notices dated 28.09.2017, 09.10.2017 and 24.04.2018, and the notices were sent to the address of the petitioner as shown in the cause title of the writ petition. The petitioner did not respond to any of the notices issued by respondent No.2 nor reported to the duty. The petitioner was already warned on two occasions for his unauthorised absence from work and further annual increment of the petitioner was also withheld as a punishment for unauthorised absence from the service, but still the petitioner continued the same. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 The petitioner is the habitual unauthorised absenteeism. 12. Hence, from the perusal of the medical records produced by the petitioner, it discloses that the petitioner has taken the treatment as an out-patient, visiting the out-patient department. The petitioner has not produced any records to show that he was got admitted in the hospital for the alleged ailments. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not respond to the notice. Respondent No.2 having fed up with the attitude of the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer. The article of Charges were issued, and the petitioner did not reply to the article of charges. The enquiry officer also issued a notice to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer. 13. The enquiry officer based on the documents produced by respondent No.2, has submitted a report stating that the charges levied against the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice along with the enquiry report, calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply. The show cause notice was published in the local newspaper in 'Udayavani', despite publication of the show cause notice, the petitioner did not reply. The disciplinary authority, considering the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, passed an order of termination of the petitioner from service. Respondent No.2 has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defense. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not avail the benefit. Respondent No.1 has rightly passed an impugned order. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50196 WP No. 21586 of 2023 ii. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV