- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 107094 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. DYAMANNA SARUR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ATTENDER AT DISTRICT AYUSH HOSPITAL, HUNGUND, R/AT. SECTION NO.42, PLOT NO.23, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOTE-587102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADYOJAT R. BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT AYUSH AROGYA RAKSHA SAMITHI, BAGALKOTE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587101. 2. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICE BAGALKOTE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, BAGALKOTE-587101. 3. THE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY MEDICAL OFFICER, HUNGUND, BAGALKOTE-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. GAAAKABA/C.S.S.SIBANDHI/2025-26/336 DATED 08.09.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK IN THE PREVIOUSLY HOLDING PLACE AT BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:49:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION5 COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis as an Attender, in the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Bagalkote, by respondent No.1 under official communication dated 25.07.2012. Subsequently, she was transferred on 16.08.2021 to the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Hungund. A showcase notice was issued on 13.04.2023 was issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct relating to participation in public announcement and contesting election. Without conducting departmental enquiry, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 21.04.2023 and was relieved on 24.04.2023. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.101743/2024. This Court by order, allowed the writ petition in part and set aside the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 order of dismissal, directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and reserved to the State to hold an enquiry in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: “ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with 50% backwages. iii. The respondent-State is reserved liberty to hold an enquiry on the aforesaid allegation, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, again in accordance with law. iv. The enquiry shall be held only if a need for it still subsists. v. All consequential benefits shall be determined to be sequential of the result of the enquiry.” 4. The said order was carried in appeal by State in W.A.No.100269/2025. The Division Bench confirmed the order of reinstatement while setting aside the direction relating to payment of 50% back wages, in view of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 petitioner giving such claim. The Sate was directed to reinstate the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of that order, the operative portion reads thus: “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument submits that the order of learned Single Judge may be affirmed while giving up the claim for backwages. Taking note of the same, the order of learned Single Judge is upheld, except the direction at clause II of the operative portion of the impugned order relating to award of 50% of backwages, which stands set-aside in light of stand of learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument.” 7. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The Writ Appeal stands disposed off; b) The appellant/State to take steps for reinstatement of respondent/employee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.” 5. Pursuant thereto instead reinstating the petitioner at the place where she was serving at time of dismissal, respondent No.2 issued the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, transferring another employee to the Bagalkote and directing the petitioner to report for duty at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Jamkhandi. It is this order under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction of reinstatement issued by this Court and affirmed by Davison Bench necessarily requires restoration of the petitioner to the position she held namely at Bagalkote. The impugned order posting her to Jamakandi, it is contended, defeats the very meaning of reinstatement and is contrary to the binding judicial directions. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State submits that the transfer is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 made on administrative ground in view of the complaints received against the petitioner and that there is no illegality posting her at Jamakandi. It is also contended that the authorities retained the power to transfer the petitioner even after reinstatement. 8. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by both the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The concept of reinstatement in service jurisprudence is well understood. Reinstatement implies restoration of the employee to the position which he or she occupied at the time of termination, unless the order of reinstatement itself specifies otherwise. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was serving at Hungund as on the date of dismissal. Neither order passed by the learned Single Judge nor the order of the Division Bench authorise the petitioner to post the petitioner at different station while giving effect to the reinstatement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 10. If the respondents were of the view that the petitioner ought not to be continued at Hungund for reasons connected with propose of enquiry or administrative exigencies, such a decision could have been taken independently and in accordance with law after reinstatement. However, the impugned order issued at the stage of compliance with the statutory directions cannot be sustained and accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-K) dated 08.09.2025 is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the petitioner at Government Ayrvedic Hospital Hungund, where she was serving at the time of dismissal. iv. It is made clear that liberty is reserved to the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:999 WP No. 107094 of 2025 if it is found necessary for reasons germane to holding proper enquiry or for any other valid administrative reasons. v. The salary, service and consequential benefits shall be determined in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8