SRI. SARFRAZ v. THE WORKS MANAGER AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY

2. THE PRINCIPAL, SHRI ABHINAV PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL, TRAINING INSTITUTE, RONIHAL, RONIHAL CROSS, 586210, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR1) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2019 BEARING NO.VA.KA.RA.SA/PRA. KA.HU/ SIBBANDI /NEMAKA/428/2019-20, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND.B. CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE AFORESAID ORDER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE HIM AS CONFIRMED EMPLOYEE AND PAY ALL OTHER BENEFITS AS PER HIS ENTITLEMENTS AND ETC., VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. B. C.

2. Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order dated 21.10.2019 bearing no. VA. KA.RA.SA/ PRA.KA.HU/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/ 428/ 2019-20, issued by the 1st Respondent, vide Annexure-G and Consequent upon quashing the aforesaid order issue writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate him as confirmed employee and pay all other benefits as per his entitlements. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in circumstances of the case including the cost, in the ends of justice.” Heard Shri Vinaykumar Bhat for Shri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner; Shri Prashant S.Hosamani, learned counsel for respondent No.1; & Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. This Court on 04.12.2025 passed the following order: “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of dismissal on account of alleged fake trade certificate submitted to the petitioner at the time of employment in the Corporation. The Corporation appears to have verified the said certificate and found that the certificate is genuine. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR In the light of this finding, without much ado, the Corporation ought to have reinstated the petitioner as the termination was only on account of a fake certificate which is now found to be denied. Learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani submits that he would seek instructions and make his submissions on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 10th December 2025 in the fresh matters list.”

4. The finding in the said order was that the fake trade certificate that the petitioner is alleged to have been produced was verified and found to be genuine. In the light of said circumstance, it is axiomatic that the petitioner ought to have been reinstated into service. It has not happened. Therefore, the petitioner is before the Court and this Court on 04.12.2025 had passed the afore-quoted order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench concerning an identical circumstance of a different employer. The employer in the case therein was the BESCOM and in the case at hand is the Corporation. But nonetheless, the findings that are rendered would straight away become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, as the petitioner has been terminated without - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR conduct of any enquiry whatsoever. In that light the Division Bench has held as follows: “18. With regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards that the employees have submitted on the basis of which they have been appointed as Assistant Lineman in the appellant’s Company, having regard to the magnitude of the controversy, inasmuch as information in respect of 173 employees is yet to be received from the Department, is initiation of enquiry in respect of 74 fake marks card and certain persons have approached this Court and have been granted relief. We think that it is just and proper to direct Sri. H.M.Nanjunda Swamy, retired District Judge and presently the Director of the Bengaluru Arbitration Centre, to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and to submit a report to the appellant in the place of Sri.Shivannagoudar, who has been appointed by the appellants. Learned Enquiry Officer shall decide the venue of the enquiry and he shall be suitably remunerated by the appellants. It

19. that all to observe is needless respondents/employees who have not yet been reinstated shall be reinstated into service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, if not already reinstated. This issued since the appellants have direction is being therefore, twelve employees and already reinstated the principle of parity, all having respondents/employees shall be if not already reinstated. It is further directed that the said reinstatement is subject to the result of the enquiry and any benefits that they have received consequential to the reinstatement shall also be subject to the result of the enquiry except the salary that they would receive for serving in the appellant’s company. To that extent, the impugned order is modified. reinstated, regard

20. Learned Enquiry Officer shall conduct the enquiry within a period of nine months from the date of commencement of the enquiry by him. It is needless to observe respondents/employees co-operate with appellants - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR Enquiry Officer for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. It

21. further clarified that on reinstatement being made, the respondents/employees shall only be entitled to the last drawn salary for the duties performed by them in the appellant’s Company. All arrears of salary as well as further consequential benefits shall be subject to the result of the enquiry learned Enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the Officer. is allowed. In view of the aforesaid direction issued, 22. impugned order W.A.No.389/2020 The passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2019 in W.P.No.35720/2019 is set aside and the directions issued in other writ appeals would apply insofar as this appellant also is concerned.

23. aforesaid directions, In from W.P.No.46307/2018 CCC.No.1153/2019 arising disposed on 19.06.2019 directing reinstatement could not survive for further consideration and in view of the directions issued above, on such reinstatement being made, shall squarely apply to this complainant also.

24. Registry to make available a copy of this judgment to Sri.H.M.Nanjundaswamy, retired District Judge and presently Director of Bengaluru Arbitration Center.

25. Respondent No.2 / Department in W.A.No. 261 of 2020 to submit a report with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards of 173 and other employees to the appellants. Liberty is reserved to the appellants to take steps for expeditious investigation to be conducted on the complaints filed and FIR registered by respondent No.2/Department. appellants as

26. Liberty is also reserved to the appellants to initiate proceedings in respect of all the employees where the report has been received from the Department that marks cards are not genuine. Appeals are allowed in part. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR In view of the aforesaid order, CCC.No.1153/2019 further consideration. The would not survive contempt proceedings are dropped. In view of the disposal of these appeals, all other pending applications also stand disposed. Parties to bear their respective cost.”

6. The Division Bench observes by following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANOOP JAISWAL VIS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANOTHER1 that even a probationer cannot be terminated from service casting a stigma. Therefore, an enquiry was imperative. The issue in the case at hand is identical as if petitioner is a probationer, his services have been terminated on the score that he has produced a fake trade certificate. This undoubtedly casts a stigma. In that light, without holding an inquiry, the Corporation could not have terminated the service of the petitioner as is held by the Division Bench in the afore-quoted judgment. The petition thus deserves to succeed with a direction to the respondent to appoint an inquiry officer and take the issue to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 1 AIR 1984 SC 636 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17776 WP No. 116686 of 2019 HC-KAR

7. For the purpose of conduct of an enquiry, the petitioner is to be reinstated into service as a probationer. All consequential benefits as observed herein above would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry.

8. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall happen for the purpose of conduct of an enquiry within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21