Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mr. Krishnan K vs The Chief General Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 4470 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4470 Kant
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2023

Karnataka High Court
Mr. Krishnan K vs The Chief General Manager on 14 July, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
                                                   -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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter