Punitive Termination Cannot Be Passed Without Hearing; Misconduct-Based Discharge Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that termination of a punitive or stigmatic nature cannot be made without providing an effective opportunity of hearing or conducting a departmental inquiry. The Court observed that once an employee has entered service, even an order styled as termination cannot be sustained if it is founded on allegations of misconduct and passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Justice K.S. Hemalekha was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 issued by the North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the petitioner's services as a KSRTC Security Guard were terminated. The petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in service. While in service, a show-cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had produced false educational documents. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the Corporation terminated his services on the premise that he had not appeared for the concerned semester examination and had secured appointment by misrepresentation. The petitioner contended that the order was stigmatic and punitive in nature and had been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry or furnishing the alleged verification report.

The Court noted that the termination was based on an allegation of producing fake educational documents and misrepresentation, thereby casting a stigma on the petitioner. No enquiry had been conducted, and no opportunity had been provided to rebut the material relied upon by the Corporation.

The Court reiterated that the form of an order is not decisive and that the Court is entitled to examine its true nature. If the order, though couched in innocuous language, is in reality founded on misconduct, compliance with principles of natural justice by holding a proper enquiry becomes mandatory. Even in the case of probationers, discharge cannot be effected by an order that casts a stigma without affording a reasonable opportunity. It observed:

“… the Court can always examine the true character of the order, and if it is found that the discharge, though innocuous in form, is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, compliance with the principles of natural justice by holding a departmental enquiry is mandatory.”

Applying the said principles, the Court held that the impugned order was not a simple discharge but a punitive termination founded on allegations of misconduct. Since no departmental enquiry was conducted and no effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner, the order was unsustainable.

“… the termination is based on an alleged verification report; no enquiry has been held, no effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. The order is stigmatic and punitive in nature,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The termination order dated 13.12.2024 was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service.

Case Title: Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO. 101353 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)]