SHRI RAJESH D vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 22980 OF 2026 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI RAJESH D
S/O SHRI DODDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT BENACHIGERE,
HUDALURU VILLAGE,
NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 572 223.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT V R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VIDYA G R
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
3. THE TAHSILDAR
GUBBI TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX,
GUBBI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
GUBBI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX,
GUBBI TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE
PETITIONER AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING
RELIEFS AND A) QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.HOA/CR/01/2016-17 E-882446 DATED 13.02.2026 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - S) AS
BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who was appointed as Grama
Sahayaka at N. Mattighatta Revenue Circle, Nittur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk has filed the present petition seeking for
setting aside of the enquiry report at Annexure-'R' dated

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
09.02.2026, endorsement/order at Annexure-'S' dated
13.02.2026 and has sought for the relief of reinstatement
with continuity of service and full packages and certain
allied reliefs.
2. The facts made out are that the complaint came
to be lodged by the Tahsildar (Grade-2) on 02.07.2022
and FIR came to be registered in Crime 157/2022 at Gubbi
Police Station.
3. It is made out from the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to investigation,
chargesheet was filed arraying the petitioner as an
accused.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner was
dismissed from service on 07.07.2022, which order came
to be challenged before this Court in W.P.No.3228/2023
wherein, the order of dismissal was set aside reserving
liberty to the respondents to take appropriate steps.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
5. It is further made out from the facts that the
petitioner was not reinstated and on request of the
petitioner for reinstatement, the respondent No.3 issued
an endorsement referring to the pending proceedings
before the Criminal Court and that reinstatement would be
considered after closure of such proceedings. Such
endorsement came to be challenged in W.P.No.2019/2024,
whereas, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on
05.09.2024 setting aside the impugned order dated
28.09.2023 and directing the respondent No.2 to hold an
enquiry by broadly following the procedure contained in
Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [CCA Rules].
6. As no enquiry was conducted, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of Writ Petition
No.3560/2025, which came to be disposed of on
02.09.2025 noticing the directions made in Writ Petition
No.2019/2024 disposed of on 05.09.2024. In the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioner had also challenged
the endorsement dated 19.12.2024 which also came to be
set aside and the petitioner was reserved liberty to make
appropriate representation for reinstatement. Meanwhile,
it is submitted that the enquiry proceedings were
commenced and culminated in a report at Annexure-'R'
and followed by an endorsement/order as at Annexure-'S'
refusing reinstatement and recommending for discharging
the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has challenged the enquiry report
at Annexure-'R' dated 09.02.2026 as well as the
endorsement/order at Annexure-'S' dated 13.02.2026. It
is submitted that the enquiry was directed to be conducted
in terms of the directions passed in Writ Petition
No.2019/2024, wherein, observations were made that an
Enquiry Officer was required to be appointed and Articles
of Charges had to be framed and other procedures require
to be followed.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
8. The petitioner submits that the enquiry
conducted solely relied on the statement stated to have
been given voluntarily to the Police Authorities and no
independent evidence has been let in. It is further
submitted that no Articles of Charges were framed and
there was violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Insofar as the assertion that no Articles of
Charges were framed, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent State is
unable to controvert such assertion.
10. It is submitted by learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
State that, in light of the statement made to the Police
Authorities, the Authorities have followed a summary
procedure.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contests the veracity and genunity of the statements
stated to have been made to the Police Authorities.
12. It must be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench
in W.P.No.2019/2024 had directed that an enquiry be
held.
13. The relevant observations made from para-7
onwards in W.P.No.2019/2024 read as follows:
"7. The respondent No.2 being the disciplinary
authority must have appointed any officer as an
enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations and
thereafter take a conscious call, whether the
services of the petitioner had to be continued.
Without doing so, the respondent No.2 cannot
dismiss the petitioner without following due
process of law is something similar to what is
contained in Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957.
Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable
and deserves to be set at naught on this short
ground alone. Hence the following:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the
respondent No.2 is set aside.
(ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to
appoint any of his subordinate or any
independent person as an enquiry officer
who shall conduct an enquiry as stated
above. This exercise shall be done within a
period of 03 months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(iii) The petitioner is entitled to seek
reinstatement, soon after the respondent
No.2 considers the enquiry report that may
be submitted."
14. There is reiteration regarding adherence to such
procedure in the observations made in W.P.No.3560/2025.
The observations made in the order dated 02.09.2025
disposing of the aforesaid writ petition from para-4
onwards reads as follows:-
" 4. This Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP
No. 2019/2024 disposed of on 05.09.2024 has given

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
a clear direction that the respondent has to appoint
an enquiry officer, articles of charges has to be
framed, it has to be served on the petitioner and a
show-cause has to be given. After obtaining the
reply, the enquiry has to be conducted. After
conducting that enquiry, a second show cause notice
has to be issued and the penalty has to be imposed.
In spite of such specific directions, without following
the same, again the impugned order has been
passed. Hence, the impugned order requires to be
quashed.
5. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated
19.12.2024 vide Annexure-A issued by the
second respondent is quashed.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to
reconsider the matter in terms of the
directions issued by this Court in WP No.
2019/2024, disposed of on 05.09.2024.
(iv) The petitioner is at a liberty to submit
a representation to the second respondent,
seeking reinstatement and for payment of

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
subsistence allowance during the pendency
of the enquiry.
(v) If such a representation is submitted,
the second respondent is directed to
consider the same within 2 weeks from the
date of submitting the representation and
conclude the enquiry within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(vi) In view of disposal of the petition, all
pending applications stand disposed of."
15. Admittedly, the procedure of framing of Articles
of Charges has not been followed. If that were to be so,
the enquiry proceedings in entirety at Annexure-'R' dated
09.02.2026 stand vitiated and the consequential order at
Annexure-'S' dated 13.02.2026 requires to be set aside
and are accordingly, set aside.
16. An employee, even if a temporary employee,
cannot be visited with a stigmatic order without such order
being preceded by an enquiry. The respondent State is

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
bound by the directions passed in W.P.2019/2024 and
W.P.No.3560/2025 which detail the manner of holding of
an enquiry. If that were to be so, the enquiry requires to
be redone from the stage of post receipt of reply to the
show cause notice. Needless to state, the procedure of
enquiry as observed in W.P.No.2019/2024, the relevant
observations of which are extracted hereinabove as well as
the observations made in W.P.No.3560/2025 extracted
hereinabove require to be adhered to.
17. At this stage, insofar as the entitlement of
petitioner for reinstatement with other benefits as
asserted, requires to be ordered.
18. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon
instructions submits that, if the petitioner were to give up
the claims of previous benefits, the respondent State
would reinstate him subject to the petitioner furnishing an
Affidavit of good conduct before the Tahsildar. It is further

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
submitted that the respondents would redo the enquiry,
taking note of the observations made hereinabove.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo
and submits that the petitioner is agreeable to give up the
rights in the nature of pecuniary benefits, if an order of
reinstatement is passed forthwith.
20. Learned Additional Government Advocate files a
memo regarding providing reinstatement to the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy
of the order.
21. The memos are taken on record.
22. The respondent Authority is at liberty to
conduct enquiry from the stage of reply to the show cause
notice. It is reiterated that there must be strict
compliance with the procedures to be followed as referred
to in the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58026
WP No. 22980 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010508862026
W.P.No.2019/2024 and W.P.No.3560/2025 extracted
hereinabove. All contentions are kept open.
23. The petitioner to file an Affidavit before the
Tahsildar assuring good conduct on the day of assuming
charge on reinstatement.
24. Needless to state that the petitioner having
given up the pecuniary benefits by conceding for an order
of reinstatement would not have the effect of taking away
other benefits such as continuity in service and other
service benefits.
disposed of.
Accordingly, the petition is
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR