IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENAGLURU (ORIGINAL

JURISDICITON)

W.P.no /2024

BETWEEN

Sri. Neha … Petitioner

AND

1. State of Karnataka
2. Commissioner of police Bengaluru … Respondents

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Pages C.F

01. Synopsis

02. Memorandum of Writ Petition

03. Verifying Affidavit

04. Annexure ‘A’ dismissal letter

05. Annexure ‘B’ Aadhar copy

06. Vakkalathnama

Bengaluru

Date: 01/12/2024 Advocate for Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENAGLURU

(ORIGINAL JURISDICITON)

W.P.no /2024

BETWEEN

Sri. Neha … Petitioner

AND

1. State of Karnataka
2. Commissioner of police Bengaluru … Respondents

SYNOPSIS

Point Details

The Petitioner was appointed as Head Constable on 27th September 2024. She performed
1. Appointment &
her duties diligently and with full commitment, adhering to all rules and regulations. There
Performance
were no performance issues, warnings, or reprimands during her short tenure.

On 9th November 2024, the Petitioner was served with a termination order, dismissing her
2. Termination from her position. This was done without prior notice, hearing, or investigation into any
Order alleged misconduct. The Petitioner was not informed of any specific charges or given an
opportunity to defend herself.

The Petitioner asserts the dismissal violated natural justice principles, as she was not
3. Violation of
informed of any charges or allegations, nor was she given a chance to respond. The lack of
Natural Justice
due process deprived her of her rights to a fair hearing and explanation for the termination.

On 15th November 2024, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondents,

4. Representation requesting a review of the termination and a fair hearing. No response or acknowledgment
& Response has been received from the Respondents, further demonstrating their disregard for due
process.

The Petitioner seeks: 1. Reinstatement to her position as Head Constable due to the unjust
dismissal. 2. A fair inquiry into any allegations, with a chance to defend herself. 3. A
5. Request for
declaration that the dismissal violated natural justice. 4. Compensation for emotional
Relief
distress, reputational harm, and professional damage. 5. Any other appropriate relief
deemed necessary.

The Petitioner argues that her dismissal violated natural justice and due process, which are
her constitutional rights. The failure to provide a fair process undermines the rule of law.
6. Legal Argument
The Petitioner prays for the quashing of the dismissal and appropriate remedies to prevent
similar violations in the future.

Bengaluru

Date: 01/12/2024 Advocate for Petitioner

 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WRITPETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Neha,

Aged about 22 years,

D/o Deepak Gowda,

R/o no.69 Nandi Nagar,

Bengaluru – 560 003

... Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Karnataka,

Through its Chief Secretary,

Bengaluru - 560 003,

2. The Department of Police,

Karnataka State police,

Bengaluru Karnataka- 560001

... Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The humble petition of the Petitioner abovenamed MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Particulars of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner, Neha, is an Indian citizen and was serving as Head constable in the Department of Police , Karnataka,

since 27/09/2024. The Petitioner resides at No.69,Nandi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 003.
2. Particulars of the Respondents:

2.1 The Respondent No. 1 is the State of Karnataka responsible for the administration of government

departments and the implementation of rules under its jurisdiction.

2.2 The Respondent No. 2 is the Department of Police, under whose authority the Petitioner was employed.

Facts of the Case:

1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable by the Respondents on 27th September 2024, and she
immediately commenced her duties with full dedication and commitment. Throughout her short tenure, the
Petitioner diligently carried out all her responsibilities, adhering to the rules, regulations, and ethical
standards expected of her. Her performance was without incident, and she had not received any formal or
informal warnings, reprimands, or performance evaluations that would indicate any issues with her conduct
or job performance. It is important to note that during the time the Petitioner served, there were no
indications or communications regarding any concerns with her service, making the subsequent dismissal
both unexpected and unjust.

2. On 09th November 2024, the Petitioner was served with a termination order issued by the Respondents,
dismissing her from her position as Head Constable. This termination came without any prior notice,
hearing, or investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct that led to the dismissal.
The Petitioner was not informed of any charges or specific accusations against her, nor was she given any
opportunity to respond or defend herself before the termination was executed. This sudden and unannounced
dismissal deprived the Petitioner of her right to a fair hearing and violated basic principles of justice,
including the right to be informed of the reasons for such a serious action and to be given an opportunity to
present her case.

3. The Petitioner asserts that the dismissal was executed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Respondents failed to provide any formal charges or allegations against the Petitioner, nor was she
given any prior notice of the termination. Natural justice, as a fundamental right, ensures that no individual
is deprived of their rights or position without being informed of the reasons for such actions and being given
a fair opportunity to respond. In this case, the Petitioner was denied the basic procedural protections afforded
by law, including the right to be heard, the right to receive an explanation for the action being taken, and the
right to a fair investigation into any charges that may have existed. This failure to adhere to these essential
principles of justice is a clear violation of the law and the Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

4. In an effort to rectify the situation and address the injustice, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the
Respondents on 15th November 2024, formally requesting that the termination order be reconsidered. In the
representation, the Petitioner highlighted the absence of any formal charges or inquiry, reiterating that she
was never given the opportunity to respond or defend herself. She expressed her belief that the termination
was wrongful and unjust, and requested a fair hearing and a review of the decision. Despite this formal
appeal, the Petitioner has not received any response or acknowledgment from the Respondents to date. This
further demonstrates the Respondents’ disregard for due process and their failure to act in a just and fair
manner in accordance with the law.

5. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the dismissal imposed upon her on 09th November 2024 is unlawful
and should be quashed due to the Respondents’ failure to comply with the basic requirements of fairness
and due process. The termination was carried out without any legitimate cause or legal basis, and without
affording the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to any charges or allegations. In light of these facts, the
Petitioner prays for the following relief: first, a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to
her position as Head Constable, as the dismissal was unjust and baseless. Second, a direction for the
Respondents to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into any allegations against the Petitioner, ensuring
that she is fully informed of the charges and provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend herself. Third,
 the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the Respondents’ failure to provide a hearing or an explanation prior
to her dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Petitioner
requests compensation for the emotional distress, damage to her reputation, and the professional harm
caused by the wrongful termination and the denial of due process. Finally, the Petitioner seeks any other
relief that this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate to remedy the injustice and prevent further violations of her
rights.

6. The Petitioner’s dismissal was carried out without adherence to the principles of natural justice, which
guarantees the right to be informed of the reasons for termination, the opportunity to respond, and the right
to a fair inquiry. The failure to provide such basic protections not only undermines the rule of law but also
constitutes a violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights. The absence of due process in
this case is a clear disregard for legal norms, and the Petitioner respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court
should intervene to quash the wrongful termination, restore her to her rightful position, or provide any other
appropriate remedies as deemed fit. Furthermore, the Petitioner seeks to ensure that such violations of basic
legal rights do not occur again, both for herself and others who may face similar unjust treatment. In light
of the above, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court issue a writ of mandamus quashing the
termination order and granting the relief sought, along with any other relief that this Court may deem
necessary and just.

Grounds

1. The dismissal of the Petitioner was carried out in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which
guarantee the right to be informed of the reasons for termination, the opportunity to respond, and the right to a
fair and impartial inquiry. The Respondents failed to provide any formal charges, explanation, or prior notice to
the Petitioner before issuing the termination order. Natural justice ensures that no person should be deprived of
their rights or position without being given an opportunity to be heard, to know the reasons for the action being
taken, and to defend themselves. The absence of such basic protections in the present case constitutes a grave
violation of the Petitioner’s legal rights.

2. The Respondents issued the termination order on 09th November 2024 without following the prescribed
procedures for disciplinary action or termination. There was no inquiry, investigation, or communication of
charges against the Petitioner, nor was she provided with any opportunity to respond or defend herself before the
termination. The failure to follow these legal and procedural safeguards renders the dismissal unlawful and
arbitrary.

3. The Petitioner has not been informed of any charges or allegations that would justify her dismissal from the
position of Head Constable. The termination was carried out without any legitimate cause, and there were no
reports, evaluations, or prior warnings indicating any misconduct. The Respondents’ failure to provide any reason
for the dismissal further underscores that it was baseless and arbitrary, making it legally unjustifiable.

4. Following her dismissal, the Petitioner submitted a formal representation to the Respondents on 15th
November 2024, requesting reconsideration of the termination. In this representation, she highlighted the
complete absence of charges and the lack of due process in the termination. However, despite the Petitioner’s
efforts to have her case reconsidered, the Respondents failed to respond or take any action. The refusal to address
the Petitioner’s legitimate concerns or provide any explanation for the dismissal further exemplifies the
Respondents’ disregard for due process and fairness.

5. The failure of the Respondents to comply with the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedures
for dismissal constitutes a violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality)
and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner’s rights to a fair
process, a hearing, and the opportunity to defend herself were blatantly ignored, causing severe prejudice to her.

6. The unlawful dismissal has caused significant emotional distress and damage to the Petitioner’s professional
reputation. The Petitioner’s career has been unjustly disrupted, and her future employment prospects have been
 severely impacted by this wrongful termination. The lack of due process in the dismissal has caused her
unnecessary harm and suffering, both personally and professionally.

7. Given the Respondents’ failure to adhere to due process and the absence of any reasonable justification for
the dismissal, the Petitioner respectfully submits that judicial intervention is necessary. The Petitioner seeks the
quashing of the termination order to restore her to her position, as well as any other appropriate remedies deemed
fit by this Hon'ble Court. Moreover, the Petitioner seeks to ensure that such violations of basic legal rights do not
occur in the future, both for her and others in similar situations.

8. The Respondents’ failure to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard before the dismissal directly
contravenes the principles of natural justice. A person cannot be dismissed from employment without being given
a reasonable chance to present their case. The Respondents did not provide any such opportunity to the Petitioner,
violating her right to a fair hearing.

9. In light of the above grounds, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus quashing the termination order and granting the relief sought, along with any other relief that this
Court may deem necessary and just.

PRAYER

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the termination
order dated 09th November 2024, which was issued without following the principles of natural justice
and in violation of the Petitioner’s legal rights.

2. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to her position as Head Constable, as the dismissal
was unjust, baseless, and carried out without any legitimate cause or legal basis.

3. Direct the Respondents to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into any allegations against the
Petitioner, ensuring that she is fully informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend
herself before any further action is taken.

4. Issue a declaration that the Respondents’ failure to provide the Petitioner with a hearing, explanation, or
opportunity to respond before her dismissal constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and
the Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights.

5. Award compensation to the Petitioner for the emotional distress, damage to reputation, and professional
harm caused by the wrongful termination and the denial of due process.

6. Pass any other relief or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just, in order to remedy the
injustice caused to the Petitioner and to prevent further violations of her rights.

Bengaluru

Date: 01/12/2024 Advocate for Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENAGLURU (ORIGINAL
JURISDICITON)

W.P.no /2024

BETWEEN

Sri. Neha … Petitioner

AND

1. State of Karnataka
2. Commissioner of police Bengaluru … Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Neha D/O Deepak Gowda, aged 22 years, R/o no.69 Nandi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 003, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-captioned Writ Petition and am well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case.

2. The contents of the accompanying Writ Petition from Paragraph 1 to Paragraph [Last Number], along
with the Prayers, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. The facts stated in Paragraphs 1 to [Last Number] of the Writ Petition are based on information derived
from reliable sources and public reports, which I believe to be true and correct.

4. I have not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court on the same cause of
action.

5. I affirm that the filing of this Writ Petition is in the public interest and not for any personal gain or ulterior
motive.

6. The annexures, if any, annexed to the Writ Petition are true copies of their respective originals.

VERIFICATION

I, Neha, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge. No part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Karnataka on this [01] day of [December], 2024.

ADVOCATE DEPONENT