Guest Lecturer Making Press Statement In 'Public Interest' Not Misconduct: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Termination Order

The Karnataka High Court set aside the of termination of a guest lecturer appointed to Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bengaluru North University Kolar, after he made a statement in the press on grants sanctioned to Kolar District claiming that these were not properly utilised by the officials.

Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Dr Manjunath R and quashed the termination order issued dated 09.04.2025 passed by Vice Chancellor, relieving the petitioner from the post of temporary Guest Lecturer in the University and also ordered not to accept his application for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer in the respondent – University, for three years.

The court directed the University to reinstate the petitioner and reserved liberty to the respondent – University to conduct an enquiry afresh, in accordance with law.

One among the 12 allegations levelled against the petitioner was that he conducted a press meet and made allegations against the Higher Education Minister and the Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioner had replied to the notice issued to him on this allegation and contended that no allegation has been made against the Minister or the Deputy Commissioner. As a citizen of this Country and a resident of Kolar District, since the Kolar District is declared as a Mines effected area, the grant sanctioned by the Government has not reached the needy people, hence, he raised the voice against the concerned people. No allegation has been made against the University or the officers of the University. This action of the petitioner is under the right guaranteed to him under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

On going through the records the court said:

“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. As the resident of the Kolar District, in the public interest, has made the paper statement since it is the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the newspaper statement made by the petitioner is not misconduct.”

The court referred to Supreme Court judgment in KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (1962) wherein it has been held that 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 in exercise of the power under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

The bench thereafter said “It is very clear that the statement made by the petitioner in the newspaper is in the interest of the public and he has a right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”

As regards other allegations levelled against the petitioner the court noted that there are 11 allegations made, they are all serious allegations. For only two allegations, they have given a notice, without providing any materials. For that, the petitioner has given an explanation. He has not admitted any allegations made against him.

Then it held, “The impugned termination order is stigmatic and the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is 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.”

Rejecting contention of the respondents that petitioner is a contract employee and conducting an enquiry is not necessary the high court referred to Apex court judgment in SWATI PRIYADARSHINI vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (2024) in which, the ratio laid down is that even for contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it has to be passed after holding a proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee.

Then it said “In the case on hand, in the impugned order, there are serious allegations made against the petitioner. The termination order is stigmatic and the same is passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the said order is to be set aside and the matter required to be sent back to the respondent – University for re-consideration.”

Appearance: Advocate D Ashwathappa for Petitioner.

AGA Vikas Rojipura FOR R1.

Advocate Showri H R for R2 & R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

Case Title: Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15289 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order