Judicial pronouncements override Government circulars. Termination of temporary employee on alleged criminal acts. Domestic enquiry is mandatory. Karnataka High Court. 1:10:2020

K.S. Nanjegowda vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition  30375/2010. Decided on 1 October 2020. Justice P.B.Bajanthri. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/343323/1/WP30375-10-01-10-2020.pdf

Held 10…Status of the employees is temporary or daily wagers, still having regard to the serious allegations leveled against the petitioners that they were involved in alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and they were subjected to criminal proceedings. Having regard to  the judicial pronouncements in the aforesaid four decisions, suffice that before taking any penal action against temporary employee or daily wager based on the allegations/misconduct stated to have been committed, minimum requirement is to hold a domestic enquiry in order to prove the alleged allegations leveled against such of those employees. Judicial pronouncements overrides the Government circular. …time  and again, Courts have held that, if any penal action is taken against an employee on the allegations and if it  is disputed by such an employee, it is mandatory to initiate domestic enquiry and conclude the  same before taking any impugned action like termination/discharge..

11. Judgments in The Constitutional Bench of the Apex  Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress And Others. (1991)  SCC (L&S) 1213 at paragraph  264,335,&  337  and D K Yadav vs J M A Industries Ltd (1993) 3 SCC 259, Smt. Shanthalakshmi vs The Commissioner for Sericultural Development, Writ Petition No. 26851/1998 (S-KAT) decided on 24/06/2002 relied on.

13….Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the order passed by the respondents is stigmatic in  nature,  the  petitioners  will certainly not get any job in future on account of stigmatic order.   This Court is of the opinion that in  all fairness, an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioners while  terminating  their services and thereafter, they should have taken appropriate action in accordance with law.

Compiled by S.Basavaraj, Daksha Legal.