- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27146 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMESH N S/O LATE DASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT LALBAGH MARTIN PAIS, HATE HILL ROAD, LALBAGH, MANGALORE CITY - 575003 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. &PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE TOWN- 575003 2. THE TASHILDAR MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE TOWN - 575003 3. ASSISTANT TAHASILDHAR NADA KACHERI, SURATKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575003 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F NO.HOA/CR/01/2023-24(A4) AND Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH BACK WAGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition is directed against the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 28.06.2024 whereby the second respondent removed/dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.10.2019. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in WP.No.12160/2020 at Annexure-C allowed the said petition and set aside the order of dismissal/removal from service dated 28.10.2019 and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to conduct necessary enquiry and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 to proceed further in accordance with law. In the said order, this Court held as under: ORDER "The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication bearing No.EST(1)42/2019/68719/A1 dated 22.10.2019 vide Annexure-A and Annexure-B proceedings bearing No.EST/CR/35/2019-20/A4 dated 28.10.2019 whereby the first respondent directed the second respondent to dismiss the petitioner and to submit a report and the Tahsildar, as directed by the first respondent dismissed the petitioner from the post of Gramasahayak on the forenoon of 28.10.2019. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vinay N. for Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Even after sufficient opportunity, the State has not filed statement of objections. At the request of learned Additional Government Advocate, the matter was directed to be listed today for filing statement of objections. Learned AGA would submit, on instructions, he would make oral submission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant in the year 2003 and he worked at various places - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 in Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada district. A show- cause notice dated 27.08.2019 at Annexure-D was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply as to why action in accordance with law should not be initiated alleging irregularity in issuing Hakku Patras and on the allegation that the petitioner got issued Hakku Patras in the name of his wife as well as to his relatives. The petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-E dated 31.08.2019. In the meanwhile, there was complaint against the petitioner before the Lokayukta on the same allegations. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply and the petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. The report at Annexure- J was submitted by Investigating Officer, Inspector of Police at Karnataka Lokayukta, Mangaluru, wherein he also alleges irregularities in issuing Hakku Patras and issuance of Hakku Patras in favour of petitioner9s wife and also his relatives. The petitioner was issued with notice to submit his reply on the report. The petitioner submitted his reply at Annexure-K. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner taking note of Annexure-J, report of the Investigating Officer, issued communication at Annexure-A dated 22.10.2019, directing the second respondent-Tahsildar to take action to dismiss the petitioner and to report. In pursuance of Annexure- A/Communication date 22.10.2019, the second respondent- Tahsildar under proceedings at Annexure-B dated 28.10.2019 dismissed the petitioner and relieved him from the duties of Gramasahayak on the afternoon of 28.10.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents have failed to conduct any enquiry on the allegations contained in the show-cause - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 notice dated 27.08.2019. He submits that serious allegations of irregularity in issuing Hakku Patras and also alleging that issuance of Hakku Patras in the name of wife of the petitioner and his relatives is made. When such serious allegations are made against the petitioner, it is for the authorities to conduct enquiry affording opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. No such opportunity is provided to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal. Further learned counsel would submit that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, only on the report of the Investigating Officer submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mangaluru appears to have issued Annexure-A/ Communication to the second respondent-Tahsildar. The first respondent Deputy Commissioner directed the second respondent-Tahsildar to dismiss the petitioner and to report. The Tahsildar ought to have conducted enquiry and afforded opportunity to the petitioner before taking action to dismiss the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A/Communication. The impugned order of dismissal attaches stigma and no person could be dismissed or removed from service attaching stigma. Learned counsel would further submit that the Government has issued Circular dated 30.12.1993 instructing the concerned Tahsildars not to terminate the services of Gramasahayak without holding proper enquiry. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Learned AGA Sri.Ramesh Jois on the contrary submits that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and such serious allegations deserves termination or dismissal. However, he admits that no enquiry was conducted before dismissing the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 7. The petitioner was appointed as Gramasahayak in the year 2003 and working as such in Surinje village at the relevant point of time in the year 2018. A show-cause notice dated 27.08.2019 was issued to the petitioner alleging the following: <¤ÃªÀÅ NªÀð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ UËgÀªÀzsÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ UÁæªÀĸÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ©.UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA§æ 1554/2 © gÀ°è C¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ªÀÄ£É E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ 94¹¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV ¸ËªÀÄå Dgï.J£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦æÃw r£Áß ¦gÉÃgÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯Áå¤ì ¥Àædé¯ï ¦gÉÃgÁ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀvÁåA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑlÄÖ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÁgÀzÉ vÀ£Àß ¥Àwß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1964 gÀ PÀ®A 94¹¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ zÀįÁð¨sÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ §UÉÎ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß UÁæªÀĸÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉݬÄAzÀ AiÀiÁPÉ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ? JA§ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä «ªÀgÀuÉ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝ°è F £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ vÀ®¦zÀ 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV F PÀZÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä w½¹zÉ. ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀàµÀÖ «ªÀgÀuÉ ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝ°è F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä «ªÀgÀuÉ/ºÉýPÉ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀV¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.= A reading of the above makes it clear that even though there was no house in Sy.No.No.1554/2B, under 94CC plan, the petitioner had illegally issued Hakku Patra in their favour and suppressing the said fact without bringing to the notice of the Higher Officers, issued Hakku Patras and also issued Hakku Patras in the name of his wife and his relatives. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. If those allegations are proved, it invites major punishment. But the said allegations are not proved in a properly conducted enquiry. It is to be noted that no enquiry is conducted before dismissing the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A/Communication dated 22.10.2019. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 8. No person could be condemned without giving proper opportunity. The impugned order also attaches stigma. No person could be removed from the service by attaching stigma. The Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of D.K. YADAV v/s J.M.A. INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in (1993)3 SCC 259 at paragraphs 11 and 12 has held as follows: <11. The law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Art. 14. and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as the quasi-.judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. 12. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.= No person could be deprived of livelihood without meeting Article 14 of the Constitution of India and without following procedure prescribed. Even an adhoc employee would be entitled for an enquiry before termination if serious charges are alleged against such temporary employee. In view of the above, the impugned action terminating/dismissing the services of the petitioner making serious allegations is illegal and contrary to the principles laid down in the above said decision. 9. The Government under Circular bearing No.FD 88 MVS 89 dated 25.09.1989 in the matter of appointment/ termination of Gramasahayak, has issued instructions at para 3 of the Circular which reads as follows: <It is seen that one of the Tahsildars of taluk has terminated the services of the two gramasahayaks without holding a proper enquiry. The two gramasahayaks approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for redressal. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has observed, that they have come across a number of such cases and pointed out that in such cases, the principles of natural justice have been contravened. In one of the cases, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal observed that due to proper opportunity not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 been given to the applicants to plead their case before the Tahsildars before they were terminated, the K.A.T. has interfered and issued an order of reinstatement in service in favour of the applicants.= A reading of the above portion of the circular would make it clear that when serious charges are alleged against a Gramasahayak, enquiry would be necessary before terminating such Gramasahayak. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order/communication bearing No.EST(1)42/2019/68719/A1 dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure- A) and proceedings bearing No.EST/CR/35/2019-20/A4 dated 28.10.2019 (Annexure-B) are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate proper enquiry and afford an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter to take appropriate decision in the matter. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of. The prayer for backwages and other financial benefits would depend on the outcome of the denova enquiry to be held by the respondent-authorities". 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite specific directions issued by this Court in WP.12160/2020, the second respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without complying with the directions issued by this - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 Court and as such petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. If the impugned order passed by the second respondent is examined in the light of the directions issued by this Court supra, it is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the second respondent has not complied with the directions issued by this Court and has not conducted necessary inquiry as required in law and in violation of Rule 11 of the CCA Rules and as such, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the second respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is thereby allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12920 WP No. 27146 of 2024 ii. Impugned order dat ed 28.06.2024 is thereby set aside. iii. Matter is remitted back to second respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations and directions issued by this Court in WP.No.12160/2020 and to conduct necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2