- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 18978 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RECRUITMENT, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PANDESHWARA ROAD, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE - 575001. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI SHIVAPPA NAIKA G., S/O BATYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, (NOW UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL) PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT DEVASYA HOUSE, ARYAPU VILLAGE, SAMPYA POST, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574210. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4364/2022 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners-State Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or legality of the order dated 22.02.2023 in Application No.4364/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) where under, the applicant's application questioning the memo dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure-A8) directing the removal of the respondent from service and also memo dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure- A10) order of removal. 2. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for the petitioners and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned AGA would submit that the respondent was appointed as Civil Police Constable by the order dated 19.10.2016 in pursuance to the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2016 under Ex-servicemen quota. Learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 AGA would submit that subsequent thereto, it was revealed that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of Ex-servicemen as he had served as police constable in CRPF, which would not fall under Ex-servicemen. The writ petition records reveal that the probationary period of the respondent was declared by memo dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure-A7), thereafter under memo dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure-A8), the second petitioner directed the third petitioner to take action against the respondent to dismiss the respondent from service for taking employment by submitting false certificate and availing the benefit of Ex- servicemen. In terms of the said direction, the third petitioner had issued memo dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure- A9) and the respondent was later dismissed by means of order dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure-A10). 4. Questioning the above orders, the respondent was before the Tribunal in the Application No.4364/2022 contending that no enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was provided to the respondent to present his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 case before passing the impugned order of dismissal. The Tribunal under the impugned order accepted the contentions of the respondent and allowed the application by quashing the impugned order of dismissal without prejudice to the rights of the respondent authorities to initiate regular departmental enquiry proceedings against the respondent. Questioning the said order, the respondents-petitioners herein are before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Learned AGA would contend that a person who makes false claim and obtains employment would not be entitled to continue in the employment, and as such the petitioners rightly dismissed the respondent from service under the impugned order. Further, learned AGA would submit that the respondent would not fall within the definition of Ex-servicemen as defined under the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1997. The respondent is a retired Police Constable from CRPF and a retired personnel from CRPF does not fall - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 within the definition of Ex-servicemen. Further, learned AGA would submit that the notification calling for application itself makes it clear that, if any false information is furnished during the course of the employment, such candidate would be liable for action without any further notice, thus, learned AGA would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the application of the respondent and quashing the impugned order of dismissal. 6. On hearing learned Additional Government Advocate and going through the writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly quashed the impugned order directing removal of the respondent dated 02.08.2022 and consequently, memo dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure-A9) as well as dismissal order dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure-A10). Admittedly, the respondent was appointed on 19.10.2016 under the quota meant for Ex-servicemen. The probation period of the respondent was declared on 23.07.2019. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 7. No Government Servant could be removed, dismissed or punished without providing reasonable opportunity or without conducting enquiry under Service Rules. Admittedly, no show-cause notice as to why action shall not be initiated for submitting the false information with regard to availing the benefit under the Ex- servicemen, is not issued. As well as no Charge Memo to conduct the enquiry is issued to the respondent. The Tribunal under the impugned order has rightly come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances, the regular departmental proceedings against the applicant is necessary. 8. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, it is seen that the Tribunal while allowing the application has observed that, without prejudice to the rights of the authorities to initiate regular departmental enquiry proceedings against the applicant, the dismissal order is quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31800-DB WP No. 18978 of 2024 9. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28