SHILPA C. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as the Junior Engineer by the second respondent on probation as per the order dated 6.10.2005 and placed at the disposal of the third respondent. The third respondent in turn posted the petitioner to work under different Town Municipal Councils. Though she had worked for over a period of seven years, her probation was not declared. On the basis of the report of the third respondent, the second respondent has discharged the petitioner from service as per the order at Annexure 'A' dated 26.7.2012. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the report submitted by the third respondent to the second respondent for discharge of the petitioner contains stigmatic statements. The second respondent without holding an enquiry has passed the order discharging the petitioner from service. The said order is not a discharge simplicitor. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have held enquiry.

(2.) On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has supported the order at Annexure 'A'.

(3.) Perusal of the order at Annexure 'A' would clearly indicate that on the basis of the report of the third respondent, the second respondent has discharged the petitioner. The second respondent has referred to the report of the third respondent in the impugned order at Annexure 'A' at great length. Perusal of the said order would also clearly indicate that the third respondent has alleged charges of misappropriation, unauthorised absence and dereliction of duty against the petitioner. In my opinion, the said order is not a discharge simplicitor. It is violative of principles of natural justice and fair play.