Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Pradesh Krishik Samaj vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
WA No. 615 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJ
N.T ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESIDENT)
BY SRI C PAPANNA
S/O SRI CHIKKAMASAIH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
by PANKAJA S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
Location: HIGH HORTICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJ
REP. BY ITS OFFICIAL SECRETARY
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY IN THE WRIT PETITION)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SRI KIRAN KOTIHAL
S/O JAGADISHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A KANAVASIDDEGERI
RATTIHALLI TQ, HAVERI - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
WA No. 615 of 2024
HC-KAR
(BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI GOURAV N, ADV., FOR R-2;
SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADV., FOR
SRI YADUNANDAN N, ADV., FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/12/2023 MADE IN WP NO.10481/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST,
AND TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10841/2023 allowing the
writ petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel
Sri. Chandrakanth R.Goulay for the appellant, the learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1,
learned counsel Sri Gourav N., for respondent No.2 and
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
learned counsel Smt.Aishwarya Hegde, for learned
counsel Yadunandan, for respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that respondent No.3 was not appointed as First Division
Assistant (FDA) by the appellant - Samaja through its
Committee to consider him as a regular employee of the
Samaja and that he has not even worked in the Samaja.
He also contended that there is no such post as FDA in the
Samaja and that the appointment of the 3rd respondent
was only made at the instance of Minister of Agriculture
and since the said appointment was not as per bye-laws of
the Samaja, his services were rightly terminated by the
appellant and hence, there is no need for following the
principles of natural justice. As such, he prays to allow the
appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 contended that the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any
interference since the learned Single Judge has rightly
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
appreciated that the appellant has violated the principles
of natural justice while issuing the order of termination to
respondent No.3 and has therefore rightly set aside the
order of termination. He also contended that since
respondent No.3 has been appointed by the appellant and
admittedly worked nearly for a period of one year, the
principles of natural justice has to be followed by issuing
show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing has to be
extended to respondent No.3 before his termination.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. As could be gathered from records, respondent
No.3 has been appointed as FDA in the appellant-Samaja
vide order dated 30.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2
i.e., the Secretary of the appellant-Samaja in terms of the
meeting of the Executive Committee dated 29.06.2021
and deputed to work as Personal Assistant to the Personal
Secretary of the Minister of Agriculture vide order dated
01.07.2021. Later, he was relieved from the said post of
Personal Assistant on 02.08.2021 and repatriated to work
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
in the appellant-Samaja. Subsequently, on 21.08.2021, he
was once again deputed to the office of the Minister of
Agriculture, where he worked for a period of five months.
In the interregnum, on 31.01.2022, the appellant-Samaja
abruptly without issuing any notice to respondent No.3
terminated his services. The said order was challenged by
respondent No.3 before the learned Single Judge.
6. While allowing the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge has observed as under:
"1 .An order of termination is called in question
in this writ petition. The said order of termination
reads as follows:
31-1-2022
ಕ ೇ ಆ ೇಶ
ಷಯ: ೕ. ರಣ ೋ ೆ ಾ , ಪಥಮ ದ ೆ ಸ ಾಯಕ, ಕ!ಾ ಟಕ
ಪ ೇಶ ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜ, 'ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ಇವರ !ೇಮ/ಾ0 ಆ ೇಶವನು2
ರದು3ಪ45ರುವ ಕು ತು.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) G¯ÉèÃR: ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀȶ ¸ÀaªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå.PÀÈ.¸À.¤: /2020-
21,vÁ: 24-6-2021
2) %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರ ಾಗೂ ಅಧ7;ರು, ಕಪ ಕೃಸ, 'ೆಂಗಳ+ರು
ಇವರ ಅಧ7;<ೆಯ=> ?!ಾಂಕ:29-1-2022 ರಂದು ಏಪ 45ದ3 ಾಯ ಾ
ಸA0 ಸBೆ Cಣ ಯದಂ<ೆ.
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
-----------------
DೕಲFಂಡ ಷಯ ೆF ಸಂಬಂ?5ದಂ<ೆ %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರು ಾಗೂ
ಕ!ಾ ಟಕ ಪ ೇಶ ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜದ ಅಧ7;ರು, ಇವ ಂದ ಬಂ?ರುವ
ಉJೆ>ೕಖ ಪತ ದ=> 0L5ರುವಂ<ೆ ೕ ರM ೋN ಾಳ ತಂ ೆ:
ಜಗ?ೕಶಪO, Pಾ: ಕಣ 5ದ3Qೇ , <ಾ: ರNRಹLT, UJೆ>: ಾVೇ . ಇ=>ನ
CVಾ5WಾXರುವ ಇವರನು2 ಕೃ$ಕ ಸ%ಾಜದ ಕ ೇ ಯ=> ಪ ಥಮ ದ ೆ
ಸ ಾಯಕ ಹು ೆ3Qೆ !ೇಮಕ %ಾ4 ೊಳTಲು %ಾನ7 ಕೃ$ ಸ8ವರ
?!ಾಂಕ:24-06-2021 ಪತ ದ=> ಆ ೇ 5ರುತY ೆ.
ಆದZೆ ?!ಾಂಕ: 30-6-2021 ರಂದು ೕ ರM ೋNೕ ಾ , ಇವರ
ಪ ಥಮ ದ ೆ ಸ ಾಯಕರ ಹು ೆ3Qೆ ೊರ45ದ3 !ೇಮ/ಾ0 ಆ ೇಶವನು2
?!ಾಂಕ:29-1-2022 ರಂದು ಏಪ 45ದ3 ಾಯ ಾ ಸA0 ಸBೆಯ
Cಣ ಯದಂ<ೆ ರದು3ಪ45, ?!ಾಂಕ: 31-1-2022 ಂದ ಅನ[ಯVಾಗುವಂ<ೆ
ಸದ ಹು ೆ3\ಂದ ]ಡುಗ^ೆQೊL5ರುತY ೆ."
2. As could be seen from the above extracted
order, the petitioner was not even heard in the
matter before a decision was taken to dispense
with his services. The petitioner has, admittedly,
worked for more than a year. In that view of the
matter, it would be appropriate to quash Annexure
J and direct the respondents to issue a show-cause
notice to the petitioner, hear him and then pass
appropriate orders in that regard. Until then, the
petitioner shall be reinstated and continued in
service."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it
clear that since the order of termination was issued by the
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
appellant-Samaja without providing any opportunity to
respondent No.3 herein before dispensing with his
services, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the
appellant herein to provide him an opportunity and
thereafter pass appropriate orders and till such time,
service of respondent No.3 herein was ordered to be
continued. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has worked in the
office of appellant-Samaja and also in his deputed place
i.e, the office of the Minister of Agriculture for a quite long
period and as such, the appellant-Samaja is duty bound to
follow the principles of natural justice before issuing the
order of termination.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VP
AHUJA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - (2000) 3 SCC
239 held that even a temporary servant is also entitled to
certain protection. His services cannot be terminated
arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the
principles of natural justice.
NC: 2025:KHC:35217-DB
HC-KAR
9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the petition
directing the appellant-Samaja to issue show-cause notice
and provide respondent No.3 an opportunity of hearing
and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Hence,
interference with the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ
appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
