- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJ N.T ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESIDENT) BY SRI C PAPANNA S/O SRI CHIKKAMASAIH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJ REP. BY ITS OFFICIAL SECRETARY (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IN THE WRIT PETITION) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SRI KIRAN KOTIHAL S/O JAGADISHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A KANAVASIDDEGERI RATTIHALLI TQ, HAVERI - 581 110. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI GOURAV N, ADV., FOR R-2; SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI YADUNANDAN N, ADV., FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2023 MADE IN WP NO.10481/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST, AND TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10841/2023 allowing the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Chandrakanth R.Goulay for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri Gourav N., for respondent No.2 and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 learned counsel Smt.Aishwarya Hegde, for learned counsel Yadunandan, for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.3 was not appointed as First Division Assistant (FDA) by the appellant - Samaja through its Committee to consider him as a regular employee of the Samaja and that he has not even worked in the Samaja. He also contended that there is no such post as FDA in the Samaja and that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was only made at the instance of Minister of Agriculture and since the said appointment was not as per bye-laws of the Samaja, his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and hence, there is no need for following the principles of natural justice. As such, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference since the learned Single Judge has rightly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 appreciated that the appellant has violated the principles of natural justice while issuing the order of termination to respondent No.3 and has therefore rightly set aside the order of termination. He also contended that since respondent No.3 has been appointed by the appellant and admittedly worked nearly for a period of one year, the principles of natural justice has to be followed by issuing show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing has to be extended to respondent No.3 before his termination. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.3 has been appointed as FDA in the appellant-Samaja vide order dated 30.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2 i.e., the Secretary of the appellant-Samaja in terms of the meeting of the Executive Committee dated 29.06.2021 and deputed to work as Personal Assistant to the Personal Secretary of the Minister of Agriculture vide order dated 01.07.2021. Later, he was relieved from the said post of Personal Assistant on 02.08.2021 and repatriated to work - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 in the appellant-Samaja. Subsequently, on 21.08.2021, he was once again deputed to the office of the Minister of Agriculture, where he worked for a period of five months. In the interregnum, on 31.01.2022, the appellant-Samaja abruptly without issuing any notice to respondent No.3 terminated his services. The said order was challenged by respondent No.3 before the learned Single Judge. 6. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed as under: "1 .An order of termination is called in question in this writ petition. The said order of termination reads as follows: 31-1-2022 ಕೇ ಆೇಶ ಷಯ: ೕ. ರಣ ೋೆಾ, ಪಥಮ ದೆ ಸಾಯಕ, ಕ!ಾಟಕ ಪೇಶ ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜ, 'ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ಇವರ !ೇಮ/ಾ0 ಆೇಶವನು2 ರದು3ಪ45ರುವ ಕುತು. G¯ÉèÃR: 1) G¯ÉèÃR: ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀȶ ¸ÀaªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå.PÀÈ.¸À.¤: /2020- 21,vÁ: 24-6-2021 2) %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರ ಾಗೂ ಅಧ7;ರು, ಕಪಕೃಸ, 'ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ಇವರ ಅಧ7;<ೆಯ=> ?!ಾಂಕ:29-1-2022 ರಂದು ಏಪ45ದ3 ಾಯಾ ಸA0 ಸBೆ Cಣಯದಂ<ೆ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 ----------------- DೕಲFಂಡ ಷಯೆF ಸಂಬಂ?5ದಂ<ೆ %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರು ಾಗೂ ಕ!ಾಟಕ ಪೇಶ ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜದ ಅಧ7;ರು, ಇವಂದ ಬಂ?ರುವ ಉJೆ>ೕಖ ಪತದ=> 0L5ರುವಂ<ೆ ೕ ರM ೋNಾಳ ತಂೆ: ಜಗ?ೕಶಪO, Pಾ: ಕಣ 5ದ3Qೇ, <ಾ: ರNRಹLT, UJೆ>: ಾVೇ. ಇ=>ನ CVಾ5WಾXರುವ ಇವರನು2 ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜದ ಕೇಯ=> ಪಥಮ ದೆ ಸಾಯಕ ಹುೆ3Qೆ !ೇಮಕ %ಾ4ೊಳTಲು %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರ ?!ಾಂಕ:24-06-2021 ಪತದ=> ಆೇ5ರುತYೆ. ಆದZೆ ?!ಾಂಕ: 30-6-2021 ರಂದು ೕ ರM ೋNೕಾ, ಇವರ ಪಥಮ ದೆ ಸಾಯಕರ ಹುೆ3Qೆ ೊರ45ದ3 !ೇಮ/ಾ0 ಆೇಶವನು2 ?!ಾಂಕ:29-1-2022 ರಂದು ಏಪ45ದ3 ಾಯಾ ಸA0 ಸBೆಯ Cಣಯದಂ<ೆ ರದು3ಪ45, ?!ಾಂಕ: 31-1-2022 ಂದ ಅನ[ಯVಾಗುವಂ<ೆ ಸದ ಹುೆ3\ಂದ ]ಡುಗ^ೆQೊL5ರುತYೆ.” 2. As could be seen from the above extracted order, the petitioner was not even heard in the matter before a decision was taken to dispense with his services. The petitioner has, admittedly, worked for more than a year. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to quash Annexure J and direct the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner, hear him and then pass appropriate orders in that regard. Until then, the petitioner shall be reinstated and continued in service." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that since the order of termination was issued by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 appellant-Samaja without providing any opportunity to respondent No.3 herein before dispensing with his services, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant herein to provide him an opportunity and thereafter pass appropriate orders and till such time, service of respondent No.3 herein was ordered to be continued. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has worked in the office of appellant-Samaja and also in his deputed place i.e, the office of the Minister of Agriculture for a quite long period and as such, the appellant-Samaja is duty bound to follow the principles of natural justice before issuing the order of termination. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VP AHUJA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - (2000) 3 SCC 239 held that even a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection. His services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the principles of natural justice. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB WA No. 615 of 2024 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the petition directing the appellant-Samaja to issue show-cause notice and provide respondent No.3 an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33