MAHANTESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order at Annexure-'D' dated 28.02.2012 passed by respondent No.1 removing the petitioner from the post of Commandant of Home Guards on the allegations of dereliction of duties and lowering dignity of the post, is called in question in these writ petitions.

(2.) Petitioner is an Advocate by profession. He was appointed as Commandant of Home Guards as per the order at Annexure-'A' dated 19.04.2010. The very order makes it clear that the petitioner will hold the post until further orders of the first respondent. Which means that the petitioner will hold the post during the pleasure of the Government. However, based on certain allegations, such as, gross dereliction of duties and lowering the dignity of the post of Commandant, the order of termination is issued as per Annexure-'D' dated 28.02.2012 by respondent No.1.

(3.) Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing attention of the Court to subsection (2-C) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Home- Guards (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Karnataka Act No.19 of 2003) (for short the 'Act') submits that the term of the office of Commandant is to be held by the petitioner subject to the pleasure of the State Government and the same shall ordinarily be for a period of five years and it may be extended for a further period of five years. He further submits that since the order of termination is stigmatic, enquiry needs to be held against the petitioner with regard to the allegations made against him as per Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Home-Guards (Amendment) Rules, 2003 (for short the 'Rules). Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate opposes the writ petitions inter alia contending that appointment order does not prescribe any particular period for the petitioner to hold the post; the petitioner under the order of appointment will hold the post until further orders of the State Government i.e. during the pleasure of the State Government; since the petitioner is terminated from the post of Commandant, the impugned order cannot be treated as stigmatic order. He further submits that since the petitioner is not the Government servant, Article 311 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service. Learned Government Advocate relies upon the judgments of this Court in the case of A.M. Bhaskar and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 4 AIRKarR 339and in the case of Khusro Quraishi Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2012 3 AIRKarR 136 in support of the contention that there is no need to conduct enquiry against the petitioner.