WP No.30965 OF 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATA1i§@ :A. x
cnzcurr BENCH AT _ [ ”
DATED THIS THE 28??’ rm?
PRESEK;1″~.§ V: X ”
THE HoN’m”.}: A
THE I-ION’BLE B:Ii'{VS,_g}fIfSv71L’IV?;3Igi«:’§w\ief:, }i’;f;GARATHNA
WRIT Pgtééwlém {A2603 {S–KA’I’)
W/0 Prakash –Gaj¢ndraga.c1akar,
Aged abCmt’%36 mm.
Working as Typist-c”L1n11-cierk,
_ Fieid R”6SOl}I’C{*3S «Centre,
…… ..
» …PE’I’I’i’IONER
RaI2ganath.S.Jois, Advocates)
” }:.9″I’he Deputy Eifiirecztor of
” “PL1’¥::i_ic Instructions 8:.
? Designated District project
Co–ordi11ator,
{Department of Public Instrucrtiozls,
Koppal District-58323 1.
WP Nox30965 OF’ 2003
2. The Project Co–ordinator,
Field Resources Centre,
Yeibarga taluk,
Koppal ciistrict.
(By Smt.K.Vid3’avati,Q0ve:’r1n3e§1tfX&1I}eeéite)”:”
This Writ petition is filedjurisier A1*tiC1C$,~226 85 227
of the Constitution’ ._II1d.ia witt_1,a;’~–yrayer to quash the
iII}§11§’lC(3 order dated EEO;-f}Efs1~..20O2ff vide A;tmexure~A3 as
arbitrary, discifiminatgry .a11t_i {(io1atiV’駒jOf*~Artic1e 14, 16(1)
ané 31}. of the ‘C,onsfit1itiQ11_ef.’VI«1;diaarid having not been
preceded by” aziiyr 130:” eziquiry’ contemplated under
rule 11′? get the:1{;C.S«.._V{C.’£3.A’;) ‘E11168, 1957.
j;§etjtit§11..Veetrxi1<;g,v"§on for hearing, this day,
'J___, made the following:
te:DRDER
~ uvHeardV’ti’;e.V1_e§reed counsel for the petitiener and so
‘ fiiso C:oia’e1_*nment Advocatet
%
itlndisputeé facts in the present case are, the
peiiti£§ner4′.Vwas appointee} as a Clerk-cum-Typist at Field
A’ Re.$ettrces Centre at Yelimrga taluk in Kappa} districtt, by
}§i19£ue ef an appeimxnent letter dated 18.06.1998 along
At
WP Ne-.30965 OF 2003
with three others on a conisgolridated salary of Rs…2,600/_
per month. It is also not in dispute
appointment. was on contract, purely on
Therefore, no morzetary _
appointment was fixed. Af.:ee¥’g
29.06. 2993 she conenuedirgoesgwiee 3o§.oe_.e2eo2
her services were te1j:t1h1atCr..’!:.VVV..”§?he-~..xyaetfeiievesi of duties
from 24.08.2002. .’:’t}i_e.AV:.”u11disputed facts
pertaining no t.r;e;..pre;;e::t e
° petjtiorzet’, there was no
opportufxiity of gven te her before issuance of
‘~ _ A;i_£§e>;1.tre.:A3 teiaieiziafing her S€I’ViC€3S, therefore, there is
principles of natural justice falling under
of the Constitution of India. With these
” eonterttione she approached the Karnataka
.%®§’1ir1ist1″ative ‘I’r’ibu:r2a1. Qver and above these facts, she
stated that one 3%z£r.Shaz1kaI’appa Ramji, Project Cow
erdinator, harassed her mentally and physicafly and he is
WP NG(30955 OF 2003
the one behind the order of termination for
The learned Member of the Karnatakah
Tribunal by referring to coI1teI3:ifi’s”‘V cg”
that on 26.06.2000 itself _t1_1e
Preject. Co–ordin.at0r wrote ‘let
Directox’ of Public Qesigfiatee District
Project Co«oréi}.jat.{)r A Z” of another
Typist»cumfiVC§}ei’3§:}1s in attending
as it was; Tt13.e” evork to complete the
. . , . _, , ll ( _ .
ieaifled Member, under these
eir{:1;:i:{1;»:1:aI1ee’s;, 25¢’ reepondent seeking pennissian of
,At;i1e\’ isév/”‘;§es.§§oz:dent 1:9 terminate the services of applicant
iA?éi$_VVjA:is§i£3e{iV::;”}9Ie also refers» to the exchange of notices
be£i¥*ee£§’.t¥’1e parties even in the month of Oeteber 2001.
éiis, the Tribunal dié not pmeeed to discuss what
§:3a:Ls’AA:ne:1t§ened in the netice if: Octeber 2001 and the
Herder does not indicate that the Tfibunal had an Qccasion
WP No.30965 OF’ 2003
te go through the contents of the saié notiee}-V
the Tribunal held that there is no
application of the applicant is i
Article 311 of the Constitetion ef.
learned Member of the tee being
not a permanent 1. as it was
on contract, which if; basis, there
was no to terminate her
services ehéeiiireules ¥_1I}d€I’ proviso to
of India. Hence, the
appiicaiieii :’bei:€iiemisseé. Aggrieved by the said
oifdger ef duismieeai ef ‘the application, the present Writ
‘petitief; is ‘filed before us.
it was not a reguiar or permanent
afipei:ii:.t1de}<1t against any sanctioned post. The very
,, 'prejeet itself was a temporary ene. Severe} persons were
R'-aepeinted 03:1 temporary basis including the present writ
petitioner to discharge the duties of a Cierk~cu1z1-Typist.
"\'\J'§ 5:" . A
WP No.309t55 OF 2003
The consideration hereunder would be not 13::
violation of Service Rules or
domestic enquity applicable 7
contention of the p€titi{)i1CIf;iS, she. was no1;..t:'Ve11"giV.ef1ea11.L
ogaportunity of being heard""before she fees ierxeinated,
which amounts to' Vfiriueiplee Hef natural
justice.
6. ‘ said to have been
exchanged. not before the Court. As
e1reac:i”§%&S¥;.§gted_ .indieatiI1g in the preamble of
AI1nexure¥2’§,3″ a:1V;>’§_)1:A1’£–, the statement dated 25.11.1998,
V’ _ ne#i:1’ii;ing.A is meritim-1-ed in the C.-rde1′ ef termixaation dated
..::f1’§;ere is lot of time gap betiveen 1998 and
If — were intending ti) terminate the services
to the misconduct of 1998 in 2002, there is no
prefger expiarxation why four years time was taken to take
_ géueh a decision. Therefere, we are of the opinion that the
WP NQ30965 OF 2008
Tribunal was not justified in connecting flleee’ to
the cause of termination referred to at
‘7. It is Well settled tlaaiiéé ”
siznpliciter without
chance of challenging’ was
attached or there giving reasonable »
opportunity “of: alleged stigma.
What. the the language used
in a to a strigna or just
‘te:*z:e§3Z;:1Ae;1:iQr;v ” ffemninafion simpliciter’ would
mean ttiai VVf).:job’afin’i1er was unsuitable on unfit for the
is{hic1a1V”‘i’:~e..xvas appointed. In that situation one
was atiached 1:0 such an order of
‘teiininatié_ne:;tho12gh eréer of terminaticm simpliciter might
have ,};ié%;ei1 for sort of misconduct. if the misconduct is net
eat in the eréer of stigtna still it would amount to
__50rder of tenninafion sirnpliciter. Therefore, the Apex
Court has, time and again, stated that even though if} the
WP N0.3096.S QF 2003
order of termiriation stigma is implicit stifl if
does not indicate the details of such
cannot interfere with the said Ifgie ‘ 1’.
also Wei} established ‘flléit,
termiiiation order attaehe€;:”.~~5oIIie’~– tiie
principles of naturei_”justiee:_ .._autei1ia’i:iea1Iy come
into pie-13:. in the order of
teII:1inatiei1?__’:vie’:;2i; important to epine
whether efifieiples of natural justice
or Iiet. facts, rzothixig is piaeed
beforeiiiis: Elie present petitioner was given
ef xbeing heard regarding her irreguiar
. *attenV6:§;:1ee~–._Vbeeause the reason for her tennination is
~. __ai.”Annexure–A3 as irregular atiendanee to the
once it refers to same lend of misconduct,
A’ she iifas entitled to have a hearing befere the order ef
teimitiatien. Even though the misconduct was the cause
H of termination, if the same was net indieated at
AI}1’1f3X{1I’f3-A3, it would have amcmnteei to ‘simplieiter’ and
WP’ N0.i30965 OF’ 2008
: 10 :
9. Accordingly, writ petition is a11ow¢r;f
A3 dated 23.08.2002 is set aside.
authority is at liberty to ‘
accordance with the prm¢_dufé”– the E
observations afresh.
In View of the”4″fi§g;:t else is already
appointed ix} in the year 2002
itself, we .10 complete the whole
pr0c¢Vsss”s:?fV.Vi§}:;VJ;Li1: the date of receipt of
certiftéd If; is perizinent to mention here
that’ in e:§a;~:;@ th6; §)<-$tfi1»tiO~;3:er is succcitssful in the enquiry to
v _ 'hr:-1*,"she W11} be sntitied to the benefits af
_ me 'o{1{:,(_;b;ti'c_.V "
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/~
JUDGE