Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Guest Lecturer’s Public Interest Statement Not Misconduct | Karnataka High Court Quashes Termination Passed Without Proper Hearing

Guest Lecturer’s Public Interest Statement Not Misconduct | Karnataka High Court Quashes Termination Passed Without Proper Hearing

Sanchayita Lahkar

 

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice H. T. Narendra Prasad has held that the termination order dated 09.04.2025 issued against a temporary Guest Lecturer was stigmatic and passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court directed that the said order be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service. It further permitted the respondent university to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law if they so desired. The bench clarified that the impugned action violated principles of natural justice and could not stand in law, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations made in the termination order.

 


The petitioner, a 37-year-old individual residing in Kolar, was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at Bangalore North University, Kolar, starting from the academic year 2018-19. His appointments were renewed each academic year, continuing through to 2024-25. The last appointment order dated 07.12.2024, produced as Annexure-C, extended for a ten-month term.

 

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Victim’s Right To Appeal Acquittal | Proviso To Section 372 CrPC Is A Standalone Provision Not Controlled By Section 378

 

On 09.04.2025, respondent No.2, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, issued an order (Annexure-S) relieving the petitioner from service. The order also barred the petitioner from applying for the position of Guest Lecturer in the University for a further period of three years. The petitioner challenged this order on various constitutional and procedural grounds.

 

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashwathappa, raised seven primary contentions. First, it was contended that the impugned order was issued without providing any notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Second, the order contained serious allegations amounting to a punitive action and stigma, necessitating due process.

 

Third, the prohibition on the petitioner from applying for a future position for three years was stated to be unsupported by law and contrary to Article 21. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgements including Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti to support the argument that temporary employees cannot be replaced without process.

 

Fourth, the petitioner claimed that a press meet held on 30.12.2024, cited in the charges, was a public interest act protected under Article 19, and no allegations were made against the university. Fifth, he alleged procedural irregularities in the Syndicate meeting held on 04.02.2025, claiming that certain agenda items were introduced without notice.

 

Sixth, he contended that apart from the first charge, no opportunity was given to respond to other allegations, and that the written explanation submitted did not amount to any admission. Lastly, the petitioner stated the seriousness of charges such as harassment of women employees, asserting that the matter was not referred under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

 

In response, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, Sri Shouri, raised several counterpoints. First, it was alleged that the petitioner had inserted handwritten content in the appointment order. Second, it was argued that the petitioner was a contractual employee and that the appointment conditions permitted termination in the event of violations. The respondents contended that the petitioner accepted these conditions upon joining.

 

Third, the petitioner was said to have made unsubstantiated allegations damaging the university's image. Based on these allegations, a Syndicate decision was taken to terminate services. Notices were claimed to have been issued, and it was argued that the petitioner admitted the allegations, negating the need for an enquiry.

 

Fourth, under the University Act and Statutes, the Syndicate could discuss issues outside the formal agenda with the Vice-Chancellor's permission. Fifth, since notices were given and admissions made, an enquiry was stated to be unnecessary. Supporting citations included P.K. Thankachan v. Thalanadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Manjunatha Gowda v. Director General of CRPF, and Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee.

 

Sixth, the counsel argued that Article 311 protections do not extend to temporary employees and cited decisions of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela.

 

Finally, it was submitted that even if the petition was allowed, the court could not order reinstatement, citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh and State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander.

 

In rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated that no notice was served prior to termination and that the Syndicate meeting lacked a formal agenda for discussing the additional allegations. Annexures V and VI, consisting of statements by Syndicate members, were produced to demonstrate that the additional issues were not discussed and were later inserted with the intent to terminate the petitioner.


The Court stated in Annexure-S dated 09.04.2025, “There are 12 allegations made against the petitioner, and all the allegations are serious in nature.” The Court noted that while a notice had been issued regarding the first allegation concerning a newspaper statement against the Deputy Commissioner and the Higher Education Minister, the reply submitted by the petitioner clarified that the statement was made as a resident of Kolar and not as a university employee.

 

The Court stated, “By looking into the allegations and the reply submitted by the petitioner, it is very clear that he has not made any allegation against the University or officers of the University.”

 

Referring to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Court remarked, “Therefore, the newspaper statement made by the petitioner is not misconduct.” Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, it recorded, “A teacher’s exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.”

 

Further citing Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Court recorded, “Demonstrations which were not disorderly or violent would be protected by the guaranteed freedom of speech, and only such demonstrations as were disorderly or violent could be prohibited.”

 

Regarding the other eleven allegations, the Court observed, “For only two allegations, they have given a notice, that too, without providing any materials.” The Court explicitly noted, “The termination order at Annexure-S is stigmatic and the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner.”

 

The Court posed the key issue as follows: “Can the Vice-Chancellor terminate the service of the contract employee without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the employee when the order of termination is not termination simplicitor, it is ex-facie stigmatic?”

 

After examining precedent, the Court referred to Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala, stating, “Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules.” The Court further quoted from Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that even for contractual appointments, a stigmatic termination requires a proper enquiry.

 

Also Read: J&K High Court Orders Regularisation Of Contractual Employees With Over 10 Years’ Service | Denial Despite Similar Past Appointments Is Arbitrary | Legitimate Expectation And Fairness Principles Must Guide Public Employment

 

The Court held, “From the above judgment, it is very clear that the order of termination of service of contract employee is stigmatic. Before passing such an order, the authority is required to conduct an enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee.”


The Court issued the following binding directions: “The writ petition is allowed.”The impugned order dated 09.04.2025 vide Annexure-S, passed by respondent No.2 is set aside.”

 

“The respondent – University is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.” The liberty is reserved to the respondent – University to conduct an enquiry afresh, in accordance with law.”

 

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri D. Ashwathappa, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri Vikas Rojipura, Additional Government Advocate; Sri Showri H R, Advocate


Case Title: Dr. Manjunath R. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No.15289 of 2025 (S-RES)

Bench: Justice H. T. Narendra Prasad

 

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!