IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAVA AT BANGAf ORE DATED THTS THE 25TH DAY OF MA cB BEFORE THE HONBL Mr. JOSTICE H ihJQH 325/1$ BETWEEN: Sri H sb, a aged Wa t Sr lit El C € AND 1. T For Pod i 3rd 1 Dr. dm5 Bangalore 2. The Fxecutiv€ Jt 4 er cr1 zr’meshrs’a cwamy Tempje, Ulsoo Rangalore B RESPDNDFNT (By Sri Udavshankar, AGA for R1, ctri 5, Rangaswam’v, Adu for P2l Thi wri petfticn is filed under A tides 226 and 221 of the Constitution of India with a Drayer to und the order of the respondents terminating the servic&s o the petitioner and etc This wit gtition coming on for hea ing tj 1 day the ourt mcde me Fol1owino ORDER 34 ‘I by the Muzrai Officer dated 22 i21992 has approached thi burt ii a pet t or ed n e 2 Briefly the facts are, petitioner was o ki a 3 w t war n ,> i r a w r w my epic U’sor Banaire wih i a Muza’ institution While workinq as a watchman he was served with a show cause notice sated 14 (8A9 2, nr laa ejig t e ‘e a ii te e tam i rnduct, He w s awked to offer hic explanaion within a particular time by the ‘irst resposdent offier Puruant to te acid rot cc ci oe td f ‘e ire 24 08 1992 denying the aliecations made in tne show cause notice and also ofrering hra ex;ianticns in hr a)lgt r ar Fir n3 ii eun epiy r m t ttrt’o e , tt esnoid n to dismrss the h temple ky ther r er r thi< £uit being 3 and or pe o f peti&i. icr rtordc tr,’t hr spsndnnt iuLsrito o 12 nt na smirs_5 the -t ‘‘ r”r rr e e26o te ii o u authorities hav oroceedd petrtioner t rom the services of re cal 21 2 t r u ht tte pet t orer befc aggrieved by the same. a vices of the tt and therefore submits tha made by the respondents is of iaw ng an enquiry Jar of Jismissal fly w thcut author fly 4. Per contra Sri Udavshankar learned Government Advocate submits tnat against the orders made by the Muzrai offrcer petitioner has a right of appeal and without exhausting such an appeai remedy, petitioner couid not have aoproached this Court, 5, Statfie dy against the but, t[ ning a p I , t ts is d an aiternetive the Muzrai ‘s Court in d ordcr. sti 6. Here is iner was ting as a watchma o a number of oars Thr said temple uzrai i i’titution under thr rr,cl uf tt State CovenmenL Aliegariens fi m(.njutt bad bean ma 5 e by the Muzrar nfticay aai,,st the ritirna n his shou auce latel ‘4 ,y r ,a w3’ R 1 w asked to offer his explanation to the allegaions made ther&n, By his reply dated 24M8 1992 petitioner had denied all the allegations made in the charge memo and nad even otfeed his expinat f fo any respondent t ‘onvir epiy pet ou ccl cc I t atior bee Without aid witt u v advertin repli file by the pet itione in my view he uld not have dismissed the petitioner from the sertces of the tempie In my view the orders made by the respondent outhority is wholly arbitrary illegal and opposed to rules of natural justice. hat vie ttt, t r dl nit I U authoii ceed a t petit tie alleg t’ of omissi d c mmissi ii the stage d-rects art noticed ‘ this cout it accocdance w1h law, f they 5’ desire nnce the ordors pasei b the espondeit authority i set aside 3 d_rec t ion reqosres t be issued tr the respordeir to ern3tate ttr pet ition’o e 0 servie ceed wit oquiry i na suspension or by continuing in service, The back s and bench horn date o d ti dat in t i se I tt’ 0U enqu Pet er is liberty demand backwages if for any reason epondents do not proceed with the enquiry within three rronths from the date of receipt of’ a cop> of this Courts orde p bse at d cti petit is all d, Rule ad absol In the facts and cit cumsances of the case parties are directad to bear their own costs, Ordered accord ngly I— 12J R’ / 5,93