A stigmatic dismissal is invalid without a properly charge-framed disciplinary enquiry.

The petitioner, a Grama Sahayaka, was dismissed on 7 July 2022 following a criminal complaint and FIR.

In earlier writ proceedings, the High Court set aside orders concerning his dismissal and non-reinstatement, directing the authorities to conduct an enquiry broadly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, including framing charges and providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

The subsequent enquiry relied on a statement allegedly made by the petitioner to the police; no Articles of Charge had been framed. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report dated 9 February 2026 and the consequential endorsement/order dated 13 February 2026.

During the proceedings, he agreed to give up pecuniary claims relating to the past in exchange for reinstatement, while the State undertook to reinstate him within two weeks.

The Court applied the procedural requirements of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as directed in the petitioner’s earlier writ proceedings. Those directions required a proper enquiry, including framing and serving Articles of Charge, obtaining the employee’s reply, conducting the enquiry, and issuing a second show-cause notice before imposing a penalty.

The Court also applied the principle that a stigmatic order against an employee, including a temporary employee, cannot be imposed without a preceding enquiry consistent with due process and natural justice.

The authorities had not framed Articles of Charge, and the State could not controvert that omission. A summary procedure based on the petitioner’s alleged police statement did not satisfy the earlier directions requiring an enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The omission therefore vitiated the enquiry and the consequential order, requiring the enquiry to resume from the stage after receipt of the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice.

The petitioner’s agreement to relinquish past pecuniary claims enabled the Court to order reinstatement, but the Court clarified that this did not extinguish continuity of service or other service benefits.

The State was to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks of receiving the order; the petitioner was to file an affidavit assuring good conduct when assuming charge. His waiver of past pecuniary benefits did not affect continuity of service or other service benefits, and all contentions were left open.