B.G.LINGESH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be an Archak of Beerlingeshwar Temple, Davanagere, and that he was appointed by respondent No.3 in the year 2005-06. He claimed that due to COVID-19 pandemic, he could not perform the duties of Archak in the Temple to the satisfaction of the devotees. He would also contend that he was paid the salary for the month of March 2019. In terms of Annexure 'G', respondent No.3 has passed an order terminating the petitioner from the services of Archak of the Temple. The petitioner has therefore challenged the validity of Annexure 'G' on the principal ground that he was not given an opportunity of being heard on the principal ground that he was not given an opportunity of being heard.

(2.) A perusal of Annexure 'G' would disclose that the proceedings to terminate the services of the petitioner was based upon the complaint lodged by the devotees of the Temple. Following such complaint, respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the complaint to the Commissioner of Muzarai Department and that following the same, report was requisitioned under Section 69-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act , 1997. Upon receipt of the report, a notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 09.03.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by 18.03.2020. It is found from the impugned Order that on the failure of the petitioner to show cause, the impugned Order is passed terminating the services of the petitioner.

(3.) It is more than evident from the impugned Order that the petitioner was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to defend the proceedings against him and the impugned order is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no mention whether the show cause notice dated 09.03.2020 was in fact served on the petitioner prior to 18.03.2020. Even assuming that the show cause notice was served the respondent No.3 ought to have granted sufficient time for the petitioner to prepare his defense. The respondent No.3 was exercising a judicial function and thus was expected to strictly follow the principles of natural justice, which unfortunately is not complied with. Hence, the impugned Order is not sustainable.