S.G.Pandit - (1.)Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15821 of 2012 by the which the petition was allowed, the respondent is in appeal.
(2.)The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure-J) passed by the respondent, discharging the petitioner from service under Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) . The petitioner asserts that he was working as a Second Division Assistant at Town Panchayath, Somwarpet, Kodagu District. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 24.07.1997 under Compassionate appointment as his father Hanumanthappa who was working in City Municipal Council, Hassan died while in service on 25.4.1995. It is stated that after appointment, the petitioner has passed prescribed Departmental Examinations. While he was working at Town Panchayath, Somwarpet, a show cause notice dated 21.06.2011 was issued alleging unauthorized absence and lack of knowledge to discharge his duties. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, by Official Memorandum dated 06.09.2011, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved and in pursuance of the said Official Memorandum, he was relieved on 29.09.2011 and directed to report before the respondent-Director. Thereafter the petitioner reported before the respondent-Director seeking further posting. It is stated that seven months thereafter, instead of giving further posting, the petitioner was discharged from service by impugned order dated 19.04.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition contending that the discharge is opposed to Rule 7 of the Rules and the same is not approved by the Higher Authority as required under the Rules. The impugned order of discharge is a stigmatic order, as such, enquiry was necessary before passing the impugned order.
(3.)The respondent filed statement of objections contending that the order of discharge is a simplicitor and would not suffer from any legal infirmity. Initially the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and his probation period was not declared to have completed. It is stated in the objection that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory and he was intermittently absent from duty, for which, notices were issued. Therefore, the respondent discharged the petitioner on account of non-suitability to hold the post.