- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11162 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: HANAMANTH S/O LATE MAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS., C/O VEERASHEKAR I CROSS, TANK MOHALLA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAV R. AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA DIST., SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE- G BEARING NO.ADM.177/2018 DJS. 16285-87/2018 DT.3.10.2018 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ (a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to cal for entire records on the file of the Respondent No.1 pertaining to the impugned order Annexure-G bearing No.ADM177/2018 DJS.16285-877/2018 dt: 03.10.2018; (b) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Certiorari and thereby quash the impugned order Annexure-G bearing No.ADM.177/2018 DJS.16285/87/2018 dt: 03.10.2018; (c) Consequently, direct the Respondents to take reinstate the Petitioner into the services of the Respondent forthwith along with all consequential benefits; (d) Any other relief as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed on 28.03.2015 as a stenographer in the 1st respondent on probation for a period of two years, which was extended for an additional period of one year from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 30.03.2017 vide order dated 21.11.2017 on the ground that on overall analysis of his performance, his performance was not satisfactory even though he was given an opportunity to improve his quality of work, there was no improvement and he was unfit to be a stenographer and also that he had not passed the prescribed Departmental examination i.e., General Law Part 1 within the period of probation. Accordingly, the period of probation was extended by a period of one year from 30.03.2017 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his quality of work as stenographer. 4. The petitioner passed the aforesaid Departmental examination during 2017-18 and in the meanwhile, the annual confidential report of the petitioner indicated his accuracy as below average culminating in the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 discharging the petitioner from service as stenographer by way of “discharge simpliciter”. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.47851/2018, in which, he filed a memo dated 18.07.2019 seeking leave to withdraw the petition as not pressed. The memo was taken on record and this Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 dismissed the petition as withdrawn vide final order dated 18.07.2019, which reads as under:- Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. Memo is filed to that effect. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. 5. Subsequently, after almost 6 years from the date on which he withdrew the aforesaid W.P.No.47851/2018 on 18.07.2019, petitioner is before this Court interalia contending that he was not aware about the memo being filed by his earlier counsel without his consent and after coming to know about the same, he has filed the present petition urging various contentions including contending that his discharge from service was stigmatic and had to necessarily be preceded by an enquiry, in the absence of which, the impugned order deserves to be quashed by placing reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab – AIR 1974 SC 2192; (ii) Anoop Jaiswal vs. Union of India – AIR 1984 SC 636; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 (iii) Managing Director, BESCOM vs. Rohit Komkar & others – W.A.No.261/2020 Dated 09.11.2020; (iv) Sanjukumar vs. The Divisional Controller, NWKSRTC – W.P.No.101353/2025 dated 10.02.2026. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that since the performance, efficiency and quality of work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and there was no improvement even after providing sufficient opportunity, the respondents discharged the petitioner from service by passing the impugned order which was discharge simpliciter without being stigmatic or punitive and the same does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition, especially when the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition in W.P.No.47851/2018 on 18.07.2019 and as such, there is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the order dated 21.11.2017 vide - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 Annexure-D passed by the 1st respondent extending the period of probation of the petitioner by one year as hereunder:- “ No. ADM.DJS. /2017 Office of the District & Sessions Judge Shivamogga Dated: 19.12.2017. MEMO WHEREAS the Reporting Authority has passed the following adverse remarks in your confidential Report for the years 2016-17 as under:- PART-III XX XX XX XX 3. (d) Accuracy “ Below Average Now, therefore, your are hereby communicated the aforesaid adverse remark as required under Rule 9(2) of Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Report) Rules, 2000, with a direction to submit representation, if any, against the said adverse remarks within the time stipulated under Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000. (R.B.Dharmagoudar) PRL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JDUGE SHIVAMOGGA.” 9. Subsequently, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 03.10.2018 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 discharging the petitioner from service by way of discharge simpliciter as can be seen from the impugned order as hereunder:- PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHVIAMOGGA. SUBJECT: DISCHARGE OF Sri. Hanamantha, Stenographer, Court of Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC, Sorab. READ 1. This office Proceedings under Order No.ADM.153/2017 DJS. 17902-03/2017 Dated: 21.11.2017. 2. This office letter No.ADM.DJS.1077/2018 dated: 27.06.2018 addressed to the Hon’ble High Court, Bengaluru. 3. This Office letter No.ADM.DJS.1414/2018 dated: 23.08.2018 addressed to the Hon’ble High Court, Bengaluru. 4. Hon’ble High Court’s letter No.LCA-II- 237/2018 Dated: 27.09.2018. 5. Office note submitted and orders passed on 01.10.2018. PREAMBLE: The Period of Probation of Sri.Hanamanth, Stenographer, Court of Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC, Sorab has been extended for one year wef 30.3.2017 vide this office order cited at Read 1 above as the work of the said official is not satisfactory and thought he was given opportunity to improve his quality of work, there is no improvement and he is unfit to be a Stenographer as reported by the Prl.Sr.Civil Judge & CJM, Shivamogga in which Court he was working on deputation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 Sufficient opportunity was given to the concerned Stenographer after reporting to duty to improve his work of dictation and typing judgment and orders. Inspite of giving manner. Therefore, this office vide letter cited at reference nos. 1 and 3 has requested the Hon’ble High Court to extend the Probationary period for further period. Hon’ble High Court vide letter cited at Read 4 above has communicated the orders of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge of Shivamogga District as “ I am of the considered view that official in question be discharged simpliciter in the light of the reports.” It is also directed to take appropriate action as per the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge, Hence, the following order. ORDER NO.ADM.177/2018 DJS.162285-87/2018. SHIVAMOGGA, DATED THIS 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018. In view of the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge of Shivamogga District and also in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5(1) (b) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977, the official Sri. Hanamanth, Stenographer, Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sorab is discharged simpliciter from the service as Stenographer in Judicial Department with effect from the afternoon of 03.10.2018. since he is not suitable to hold the post of a Stenographer, during the probationary period, as per the reports received from the Presiding Officers under whom the official worked. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 The official be relieved from Government Service on the afternoon of 03.10.2018. Necessary entries shall be made in the service Register of the Official. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) Prl.District & Sessions Judge Shivamogga.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid material on record will indicate that since the performance, efficiency and quality of work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and there was no improvement even after providing sufficient opportunity, the respondents discharged the petitioner from service by passing the impugned order which was by way of “discharge simpliciter” without being stigmatic or punitive and the same does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. Further, in the absence of any reasonable or satisfactory explanation in the petition as to withdrawal of the earlier writ petition by the petitioner on 18.07.2019 in W.P.No.47851/2018 and the inordinate delay and latches in filing the present petition after almost 6 years i.e., on 01.04.2025, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present petition. Under these circumstances, though the petitioner placed reliance on the aforesaid - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15898 WP No. 11162 of 2025 judgments in support of his claim, in view of the findings recorded by me hereinbefore, the said judgments would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AKC/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3