Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has set aside Bengaluru North University's order to terminate the services of a temporary guest lecturer.
Justice HT Narendra Prasad directed the Kolar-based university to reinstate him, but reserved liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.
R Manjunath was appointed a guest lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication for 2018-19. In a appointment order, his services were continued until 2023-24.
On December 7, 2024, he was appointed for the academic year 2024-25 for 10 months, with certain conditions. During this period, on certain serious allegations, Manjunath was terminated from service and was ordered not to accept his application for the post of guest lecturer for three years.
Manjunath petitioned the high court against the university order. He contended that while the termination order listed 12 allegations against him, including harassing women employees, no inquiry was held. The action is punitive in nature and causes stigma, he claimed and added that he was terminated without being given a notice or inquiry.
The university defended its actions, claiming that the petitioner was only a contract employee and had been making "baseless" allegations against the institution and its employees, damaging its image. Even if the matter remitted back, there cannot be a direction to reinstate the petitioner into the service, it said.
Justice Prasad noted that one of the allegations against the petitioner pertained to his purported media statement against the deputy commissioner and the higher education minister with regard to inaction towards the welfare of the Kolar district, a declared mine-affected area. The court said that this statement is in the interest of the public and he has a right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. This would not amount to misconduct.
Of the remaining 11 allegations, the court pointed out that for two charges, a notice was issued to the petitioner, that too without providing any materials.
"The impugned termination order is stigmatic and the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is a well-settled law that, if the order of termination is stigmatic, the principle of natural justice has to be followed. After hearing the parties, an order has to be passed,” the court said.