Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4470 Kant
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7263
WP No. 100991 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 100991 OF 2017 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
MR. KRISHNAN K. S/O M. KULLAN,
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS,
4/227, VARATTANA PALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
DIST: KRISHNAGIRI, (TAMILNADU STATE)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
(COMM./HRD),
COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA,
OFFICE AT KAPAS BHAVAN,
PLOT NO.3/A, SECTOR 10,
CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI
VISHAL 2. COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
NINGAPPA W.B. PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR,
PATTIHAL NEW COTTON MARKET,
Digitally signed by OPP. NORTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL HUBBALLI.
Date: 2023.07.18 DIST. DHARWAD.
11:16:05 +0530
REPTD. BY BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.G.KADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7263
WP No. 100991 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court with a
prayer to quash the order Annexure - F dated 04.08.2016
issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings bearing
NO.CCI/HO/HRD/2016-3364 and to direct the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner had applied to the post of Junior
Cotton Purchaser pursuant to the advertisement issued by
the respondent - Corporation in the year 2014.
Considering his qualification and experience, he was
appointed and accordingly an appointment order was also
issued on 03.03.2015. When the matter stood thus, he
was issued with the show cause notice on 11.05.2015
alleging that the experience certificate furnished by him
was not genuine. The petitioner had given a reply to the
same. Thereafter, vide the order impugned, the
respondents have dismissed the petitioner from service.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7263 WP No. 100991 of 2017
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the respondent - Corporation without holding any enquiry
could not have passed the order of dismissal against the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that identical question which arises for consideration in
this writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.6985/2021, The Cotton
Corporation of India Ltd., and another vs. Vignesh S.
which was filed by the respondent - Corporation and in the
said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that there
was no necessity to hold any enquiry. In the case of The
Cotton Corporation of India Limited and another vs.
Vignesh S., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
"In the present case, the advertisement had clearly indicated the eligibility condition
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7263 WP No. 100991 of 2017
which contemplated work experience of a specified duration. The inquiries conducted by the appellant revealed that the certificate issued in favour of the respondent was completely incorrect and false.
The basic condition of eligibility itself was thus not complied with and the invalidity went to the root of the matter. It is not a case of any conduct on part of the employee after he was appointed, but the invalidity was pertaining to the very entitlement and candidature of the respondent.
It is not even suggested that the respondent was having any documentary
evidence to support his case that he had the requisite work experience for more than a year. The documents could have been in the nature of credit of the amounts towards salary into his bank account, deductions made by requisite authorities towards his Provident fund dues or any such documents. None of those documents were even referred to in the response filed on behalf of the respondent.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7263 WP No. 100991 of 2017
The order of termination issued by the appellant thus could not be faulted.
It is however made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to recover any amount paid by way of salary or emoluments to the respondent while he was in the service of the appellant."
6. The said judgment was rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in identical circumstances and therefore,
the same would be applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Even in this case it is
made clear that respondents shall not recover any amount
paid to petitioner by way of salary or emoluments while he
was in service.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSH
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!