The State Of Karnataka Rep By Pri ... vs Sharadha Dodmani
2023 Latest Caselaw 5086 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB
                                                               WA No. 100309 of 2022




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                   DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
                                                  PRESENT
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
                                                    AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                   WRIT APPEAL NO. 100309 OF 2022 (S-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                           M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                           BENGALURU-560001.

                      2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                           DISTRICT TOWN MUNICIPAL CELL,
                           BAGALKOT-587 201.
                                                                            ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                      AND:


                      1.   SMT. SHARADHA L. DODMANI W/O. SHANKAR,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B               AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. ACCOUNTANT,
SHELAR                     TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587201.
KARNATAKA
Date: 2023.08.05
12:22:56 +0530
                      2.   THE TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,
                           BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587201,
                           REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1
                          SRI. PRAKASH HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                            THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
                      ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, PLEASED TO CALL FOR
                      RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
                      SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN W.P.NO.47144/2018 DATED 15-09-2021 AND
                      CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
                      JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB
                                          WA No. 100309 of 2022




     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal arises out of the impugned order

dated 15.09.2021 passed in W.P. No.47144/2018 whereby

the learned single Judge quashed the termination order

dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

District Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot, and directed

reinstatement of respondent No.1-writ petitioner to duty.

2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the

appellants-State and the learned counsel for the

respondents.

3. The material on record discloses that the writ

petitioner, claiming to be serving as an Accountant, preferred

the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated

27.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby

he was terminated from service. Before the learned Single

Judge, it was specifically contended that though he was a

temporary/contractual employee, the order impugned in the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB WA No. 100309 of 2022

writ petition terminating his service was passed in violation

of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any

enquiry was held nor the reply given by the petitioner was

considered by the Deputy Commissioner and consequently,

the impugned order of termination was vitiated and deserved

to be set aside.

4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge will indicate that the appellant-State did

not file statement of objections to the writ petition, and

based on the material on record, the learned Single Judge

came to the conclusion that, in the absence of necessary

enquiry and consideration of the reply submitted by the writ

petitioner, the impugned order of termination was illegal and

violative of principles of natural justice and as such, the

learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order

allowing the petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge, the State is before this

Court by way of the present appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB WA No. 100309 of 2022

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the

material on record, the learned Additional Advocate General

invited our attention to the application - I.A. No.5/2022 filed

by the appellant-State along with which additional documents

have been produced by the appellants-State in order to

contend that an opportunity was provided by the Deputy

Commissioner prior to passing the order of termination. It is

also contended that the order of termination was in conformity

with the undertaking given by the writ petitioner.

6. The said applications filed by the appellants-State

are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the first

respondent-writ petitioner who contends that the appellants-

State had not exercised due diligence and had not produced

the said documents at the time of the impugned order being

passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently, no

indulgence can now be shown in favour of the appellants-State

by permitting production of the said documents.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB WA No. 100309 of 2022

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival submission and perused the material on record.

8. Though several contentions have been urged by

both side with regard to production of said additional

documents, having regard to the fact that the said additional

documents produced along with I.A. No.5/2022 are with

reference to the subject matter of the writ petition and the

present appeal, without expressing any opinion on the

merits/demerits of the rival contentions, we deem it just and

proper to allow said I.A. No.5/2022 and permit production of

the said additional documents and receive the same on record.

9. Pursuant to allowing I.A. No.5/2022, it would also

be necessary to set aside the impugned order and remit the

matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the

rival claims afresh in accordance with law.

10. In the result, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8005-DB WA No. 100309 of 2022

ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside and the W.P.

No.47144/2018 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge.

iii) I.A. No.5/2022 stands allowed and the documents produced along with the application are received on record.

iv) The matter is remitted back to the learned single Judge for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law. All contentions on all aspects of the matter including the additional documents produced along with I.A. No.5/2022 are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Pending I.A. No.4/2022 does not survive for

consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMS