Karnataka High Court
Sri B R Chaluvaraj vs The Managing Director on 12 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
WA No. 464 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.R. CHALUVARAJ
S/O. B.C. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. S - 56
RASHI NILAYA, 6TH CROSS
NEAR PUMP HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR
MANDYA - 571 401.
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
SUMATHY (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
KANNAN
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA SOAPS AND
DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO.27, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL SUB URB
POST BOX NO. 5531
PUNE NATIONAL HIGH WAY
BANGALORE - 560 055.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
WA No. 464 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 35732/2019
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.
35732/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT HEREIN
AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.35732/2019 (S-DIS) [impugned order], whereby
the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition captioned
'B.R. Chaluvaraj v. The Managing Director' impugning an order
dated 14.06.2019 (Termination order), whereby his services with
the respondent Company - Karnataka Soaps and Detergents
Limited [KSDL] - was terminated.
3. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Officer, (Production
& Maintenance), in terms of an appointment order dated
26.05.2014. The appellant had applied for the said post pursuant to
a notification dated 16.10.2012 issued by KSDL inviting
applications for the said post. Undisputedly, the appointment letter
makes it clear that a candidate shall not be a dismissed employee
of Government / Semi-Government / Private Institution. And if it
was found that the candidate had furnished false information, he
would be liable to be removed.
4. The appellant had not disclosed that prior to his appointment,
he was dismissed as an employee of 'Raithara Vyavasayothpanna
Maraata Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mandya' [hereafter 'the
Society'], in terms of a dismissal order dated 10.12.2011. The
appellant's dismissal from the service was punitive and on the
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
allegation that he had misappropriated a sum of `11,56,866/- from
his employer. A criminal case had also been registered [Case
No.94/2010] under Section 408 IPC before the Mandya City West
Police Station and a charge-sheet had been filed before the Court
of the Addl. CJ & JMFC, Mandya [C.C.No.131/2013].
5. After the appellant had been appointed by KSDL, enquiries
were made with the police authorities under Rule 10 of the
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 for
obtaining the conduct and antecedent report. The police authorities
informed KSDL regarding the pending case.
6. The appellant's explanation was sought and the same was
examined. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to
issue an order dated 21.01.2015 releasing the appellant from the
post of Junior Officer (P & M), with immediate effect.
7. Aggrieved by his termination from the services, the appellant
filed a writ petition being W.P.No.3517/2015. He contested the
allegation that there was any suppression on his part. The learned
Single Judge examined the information as required to be furnished
by the petitioner. Under Sl.No.17 of the application, the appellant
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
was required to respond as to whether he was "Convicted for any
criminal or other offences? Yes / No. If Yes, give full details in a
separate sheet." Apparently, the appellant had neither responded
in the affirmative nor in the negative. It was thus alleged that he
had suppressed material facts.
8. According to the KSDL, the appellant could be terminated
from services without holding an enquiry, as the probationary
period had not ended. This court, faulted the said reasoning. The
court noted that since there was stigma attached to the appellant's
dismissal, it was necessary for KSDL to hold an enquiry.
Accordingly, the termination order dated 21.01.2015 was set aside
and the appellant was reinstated in service, pending enquiry.
9. Thereafter, the KSDL appointed an Enquiry Officer for
conducting enquiry into the Articles of Charge, which were served
to the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report
on 06.02.2016. It found that the charges were not established.
Enquiry Officer had accepted the appellant's contention that he had
not given any information against Sl.No.17 of the application, as he
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
had not been convicted of any offence. Although criminal case was
pending against the appellant, he had not been convicted.
10. The Managing Director of KSDL did not accept the
aforementioned enquiry report. In the meanwhile certain material
documents regarding the conduct of the appellant had been
received from his previous employer - the Society - which had
dismissed him from service on account of allegations of criminal
breach of trust and misappropriation. The Managing Director of
KSDL was of the view that a fresh look was warranted, in light of
the documents received. Accordingly, a retired District and
Sessions Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct a
fresh enquiry.
11. The appellant challenged the initiation of a fresh enquiry by
filing a writ petition being W.P.No.19505/2016. The said petition
was disposed of by an order dated 08.01.2018. The learned Single
Judge had faulted KSDL for instituting a fresh enquiry, without
framing a set of fresh charges. The learned Single Judge was of
the view that the Disciplinary Authority was not bound by the
enquiry report and was free to disagree with the same and pass the
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
order after affording the delinquent officer of an opportunity of
being heard. However, if a fresh enquiry was instituted on the
basis of additional material, it was necessary to frame a fresh set of
charges and furnish the additional material to the delinquent officer.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the
order initiating fresh enquiry. However, the court also observed
that the KSDL would be free to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry
against the appellant, in accordance with law.
12. Pursuant to the said liberty, KSDL initiated a fresh enquiry.
Fresh Articles of charges were framed and served. The fresh
Articles of Charges also included allegations pertaining to the
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Society [appellant's
previous employer 'Raithara Vyavasayothpanna Maraata Sahakara
Sangha Niyamitha, Mandya'].
13. The enquiry proceedings culminated in Enquiry Officer
furnishing an enquiry report dated 20.04.2019 holding that the
charges leveled against the appellant were proved. Thereafter on
07.05.2019, KSDL issued a second show cause notice furnishing
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
the report affording the appellant an opportunity to respond to the
same.
14. The appellant made a representation on 11.05.2019
requesting the KSDL to furnish certain documents. In the
meanwhile, by an order dated 03.06.2019, the criminal proceedings
which were instituted against the appellant (C.C.No.131/2013), and
were pending before the Additional CJ & JMFC, Mandya were
quashed by an order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5280/2014.
15. On 14.06.2019, the KSDL issued an order terminating the
appellant from its services.
16. The appellant challenged the said dismissal order by filing a
writ petition being W.P.No.35732/2019, which was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned order.
17. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was liable
to be removed from service, as there was no dispute that the
appellant had been dismissed from the services of the society, in
terms of the dismissal order dated 10.12.2011. Further, the learned
Single Judge did not accept the contention that the petitioner was
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
not afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry
proceedings.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant earnestly
contended that the earlier enquiry was substantially on the same
charges that were framed subsequently. He contended that since
the first Enquiry Officer had found that charges were not proved, it
was not open for KSDL to institute a fresh enquiry on the same
charges.
19. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention, for essentially
two reasons. First, that the enquiry report furnished by the First
Enquiry Officer holding that the charges were not proved, was not
accepted by KSDL. As held by the learned Single Judge by his
order dated 08.01.2018 passed in writ petition being
W.P.No.19505/2016, the Disciplinary Authority was not bound by
the enquiry report and could reject the same. Undisputedly, the
Disciplinary Authority could have proceeded to pass an adverse
order after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
However, it was also open for the Disciplinary Authority to institute
a fresh enquiry by framing fresh charges in case if there was any
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
further material that required to be enquired into. However, fresh
enquiry could not be instituted without framing fresh Articles of
charge on the basis of additional material available with the
authority. Although the Disciplinary Authority had not accepted the
enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer holding that the
charges were not proved, the concerned authority (Managing
Director KSDL) had decided to institute a fresh enquiry. This was
for the reason that there was additional material, having a bearing
on the allegations of misconduct, which was received from the
Society (the appellant's previous employer). The fresh Articles of
Charges contained extensive reference to the material received
from the appellant's previous employer.
20. The aforesaid material clearly established that the order
dated 10.12.2011 had been passed dismissing the appellant from
the services of the society, based on an enquiry report. The
appellant was fully aware that once he had been dismissed from
services, he would not be eligible for Government employment.
However, he had suppressed his dismissal while applying for the
post of Junior Officer (P & M) in KSDL. The Enquiry Officer had
found that the allegation of suppression of material facts was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
established and the allegations made in the Articles of Charges
were proved. The appellant was dismissed from service based on
the said findings.
21. There is no dispute that the appellant's appointment letter
clearly indicated that the same was on the condition that he had not
been dismissed as an employee of a Government / semi-
Government / private institution. The appointment letter also
clarified that if it was found that false information had been
submitted, the appellant would be liable for removal from services.
Since there is no dispute that the appellant had been dismissed as
an employee of the society prior to his appointment with KSDL on
the allegation of misappropriation of a sum of `11,56,866/-, the
appellant's appointment, was liable to be cancelled. The fact that
he had been dismissed from service, was clearly a material fact
which was required to be disclosed. The appellant's appointment
was conditional on him not being terminated from service by his
previous employer.
22. In view of the above, the order dismissing the appellant from
service, cannot be faulted.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31212-DB
HC-KAR
23. We concur with the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge in rejecting the appellant's challenge to the order of
dismissal from service. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly,
dismissed.
24. The pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
KS
