- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SURAJ TALAWAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O HANUMAVVA, W/A MECHANIC GRADE-II, (NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE), O AND M SECTION-3, CITY SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, CHINTAMANI, KOLAR-563125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (A AND HR) BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(E) O AND M SECTION-3, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 CITY SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, CHINTAMANI, KOLAR-563125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND – (A) QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. KAANIM(V)/LEYAA(C)/CHINVI/2025- 26/8511-17 DATED 18-03-2026 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. (B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS, NO. 1 TO 3 HEREIN, TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AND COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.A NO. 261 OF 2020 (ANNEXURE-E) BY ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. (C) ISSUE SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “To call for the entire records leading to the subject matter from the respondents and – (a) quash order bearing No.Kaa.Ni .M(v) / Ley.Aa(C) / Chin.Vi / 2025- 26 / 8511-17 dated 18-03-2026 (Annexure-G) issued by 3rd respondent, by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari; (b) direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits to the petitioner and comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.A No.261 of 2020 (Annexure-E) by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. (c) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner appeared for State Council for Vocational Training ("SCVT”) Examination and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 successfully completed his Industrial Training Institute (“ITI”) Course. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman/Powerman in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (“BESCOM”, for short) based on the provisional marks card issued by the ITI Board. The probationary period of the petitioner was declared as satisfactory. It is contended that the petitioner was a permanent employee. However, the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner on the score that the marks card produced by the petitioner is fake, and the said order of termination was without conducting any disciplinary enquiry under Regulation No.11 of the KEB Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (“CDCA Regulations”, for short). The petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 18.03.2026. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 4. The respondents filed statement of objections admitting that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman on 13.08.2015 and it is contended that the petitioner has produced a fake marks card and obtained the employment. Hence, he submits that a complaint was filed before Chintamani Police Station on 15.06.2017 requesting to register a criminal case and to take an appropriate action against the petitioner and others. Hence, the petitioner prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is stigmatic and it is not a termination simplicitor. When it is a stigmatic termination, the respondents have to hold an enquiry. She submits that the respondents, without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 holding a disciplinary enquiry, have passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. She also submits that similarly placed person approached this Court in W.P. No.46307 of 2018. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 19.06.2019. 7. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No.261 of 2020 and connected matters. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals with liberty to the respondents to initiate proceedings in respect of all the employees where the report has been received from the Department that marks cards are not genuine. She submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of the order passed in W.A. No.261 of 2020 and connected cases. Hence, she prays to allow the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman. On inquiry, the respondents came to know that the petitioner has produced fake documents at the time of appointment. A report was submitted to the respondents and based on the report submitted, the respondents have passed the order in respect of the employees who have submitted fake marks card. 11. Similarly placed person has approached this Court in W.P. No.46307 of 2018 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 19.06.2017 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 12. The said order passed in W.P. No.46307 of 2018 was challenged by the respondents in W.A. No.261 of 2020 and connected cases. The said writ appeals came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2020. The Division Bench while disposing of said writ appeals observed as follows: “16. Be that as it may, prior to termination or dismissal of the respondents/employees from the service, no enquiry has been conducted. This is not a case of discharge simplicitor employees whose appointments have not been made permanent. Further in case of those employees, whose appointments have been made permanent, they could not have been dismissed from service without holding an enquiry as it would otherwise be contrary to the principles laid down under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In fact, in the case of Anoop Jaiswal V/s. Government of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 India & another - AIR 1984 SC 636, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 12 and 13 as under: “12. It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee. 13. In the instant case, the period of probation had not yet been over. The impugned order of discharge was passed in the middle of the probationary period. An explanation was called for from the appellant regarding the alleged act of indiscipline, namely, arriving late at the Gymnasium and acting, as one of the ring leaders on the occasion and his explanation was obtained. Similar explanations were called for from other probationers and enquiries were made behind the back of the appellant, only the case of the appellant was dealt with severely in the end. The cases of other probationers who were also considered to be ring leaders were - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 not seriously taken note of. Even though the order of discharge may be non-committal, it cannot stand alone. Though the noting in the file of the Government may be irrelevant, the cause for the order cannot be ignored. The recommendation of the Director which is the basis or foundation for the order should be read along with the order for the purpose of determining its true character. If on reading the two together the Court reaches the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground as the appellant has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Art.311(2) of the Constitution.” Therefore, when even where a probationer is to be discharged, the Court can always go into the true character of the order and if it is found that the discharge is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, then it is necessary that an enquiry should be held. Insofar as permanent employees are concerned, there ought to be compliance of the principles of natural justice by holding an enquiry as per the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 principles of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.” 13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents before passing the impugned order have not held any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners, even though liberty was reserved to the respondents in the writ appeals to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employees, against whom a report was received from the Department to the effect that their marks card were fake. 14. Despite liberty being reserved in favour of the respondents, the respondents in the instant case have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings. Without initiating any enquiry, they have passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26632 WP No. 9537 of 2026 ORDER (I) The writ petition is allowed; (II) The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner herein vide Annexure ‘G’, is hereby quashed. (III) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. (IV) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and extend all consequential benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement. (V) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20