Karnataka High Court
Shri Veeresh S/O Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108146 OF 2025 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VEERESH S/O. VENKATESH,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: VILLAGE ASSISTANT,
THOLAMAMIDI (CURRENTLY DISMISSED),
R/O: THOLAMAMIDI-583102
KAMMARCHEDU,
TQ &DIST BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ AND SRI. SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
by NAGAVENI BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
4. THE TAHASILDAR AND
BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
RUPANAGUDI-583102
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR
TOLAMAMIDI 583102
TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
I. WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02.09.2025 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA/PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/C¦Ã®Ä/39/2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
II. WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.09.2025 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA.PÀA:UÁæ¸À:26.2025-26 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.
III. CONSEQUENTIALLY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK TO SERVICE
FROM HIS DATE OF DISMISSAL AND GRANT HIM ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD THEREOF FLOW.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
I. Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 bearing no. ¸ÀA/PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/C¦Ã®Ä/39/2025 passed by the Respondent no.3 as per Annexure-E. II. Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 bearing no. ¸ÀA.PÀA:UÁæ¸À:26.2025-26 passed by the Respondent No.4 as per Annexure-F. III. Consequentially a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the Respondents herein to reinstate the Petitioner back to service from his date of dismissal and grant him all the consequential benefits that would thereof flow.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.J.Basavaraj and Sri.Suhas K. Hosmani, appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP-Sri.Girija S. Hiremath, appearing for respondents.
3. The petitioner is appointed as a Village Assistant in Kudligi Village w.e.f. 28.01.2006. Certain complaints emerged -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR against the petitioner of certain misconduct. A notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him.
The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. Without holding an enquiry or considering the reply on the Show Cause Notice so issued, the petitioner comes to be dismissed from service. The dismissal of the petitioner is what has driven him to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an employee like the petitioner who had worked from 2006 till the date he was dismissed in the year 2025, 19 years had passed. An employee of 19 years service cannot be dismissed without holding any enquiry that too on allegations. Learned HCGP would however submit that for the service of the petitioner i.e., Village Assistant, a Show Cause Notice seeking a reply would suffice. Therefore, would seek to defend the impugned action.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
6. The aforesaid facts are all a matter of record.
7. The entry of the petitioner as a Village Assistant in Kudligi village is on 28.01.2006. Show Cause Notice comes to be issued on 15.04.2025 and the impugned order dismissing the petitioner comes to be issued on 02.09.2025. It is an admitted fact that no enquiry is conducted against the petitioner. Since the employee has worked for 19 years in whatever status, he has worked contract or temporary, he would gain a quasi permanent status. An employee in a quasi permanent status cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry in the least, is the settled principle of law, particularly when the termination is foundationed upon certain allegations. If an order of termination casts a stigma to any kind of employee, such employee cannot be terminated without at the outset, holding a departmental enquiry. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. This court in W.P.No.55978/2016 disposed on 13.01.2021 has held as follows:
"5. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on 13.11.2006 and his appointment was approved in accordance with law on 30.4.2015 which makes him a permanent employee of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat appears to have resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service on account of certain allegations - complaints received by the residents of the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner services came to be terminated on account of allegations against him which is evident from the order passed by the Chief Executive officer directing dismissal of petitioner from service.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat would place reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and contends that the power to dismiss an employee is available with the Gram Panchayat and no fault can be found with the resolution of the Gram Panchayat to remove the petitioner and the consequent order of the second respondent - Chief Executive Officer giving a further direction to dismiss the petitioner from service.
7. Admittedly, there is no enquiry concluded against the petitioner prior to his dismissal from service. It is trite law that a permanent employee of a Gram Panchayat cannot be dismissed from service without holding an enquiry, but in the case at hand, admittedly, no enquiry is conducted and on the basis of a show cause notice that is issued to the petitioner, he has been dismissed from service.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.48068/2018 disposed on 21.10.2020, has held as follows:
"12. The order of removal is passed invoking Section 113(3) of the said Act, it is germane to consider the purport of the aforesaid Section and is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"113. Appointment and control of employees.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 111 and 112 the Grama Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer appoint other employees of the Grama Panchayat and pay their salaries from the Grama Panchayat Fund:
Provided that in making appointments the appointing authority shall reserve posts for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the same manner and to the same extent as is applicable for the recruitment to posts in the State Civil Services.
(2) The [Panchayat Development Officer] may, by order, fine [x x x] or withhold, the increment of any employee appointed by the Grama Panchayat.
(3) The Grama Panchayat may reduce in rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it.
(4) An appeal shall lie against an order passed by the [Panchayat Development Officer] under sub-section (2) to the Executive Officer and against an order -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR passed by the Grama Panchayat under sub-
section (3) to the Chief Executive Officer [xxx] (5) Any appeal under sub-section (4) pending before the Mandal Panchayat or the Zilla Parishad on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, shall stand transferred respectively to the Executive Officer and the Chief Executive Officer and such appeal shall be decided by them as if it had been filed before them."
13. The afore-extracted provision of law, no doubt empowers the Gram Panchayat to reduce in rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it. But this cannot clothe the Gram Panchayat with the power to remove a permanent employee on grounds of misconduct, without holding an enquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to defend himself as the allegations made would remain allegations until it is substantiated by a process known to law failing which, it would amount to removal of an employee on the basis of suspicion.
14. It is trite law that any amount of suspicion cannot take the place of proof and proof can be arrived at only if a procedure to arrive at is followed. Thus, conduct of a departmental enquiry in the wake of the allegations of misconduct is mandatory and cannot be obviated or circumvented in any manner.
15. Though the employee of a Gram Panchayat is not a civil servant in its true sense and would not get the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India nonetheless, a Gram Panchayat being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound by the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. Therefore, even if a provision bestows power upon the employer to remove an employee for misconduct under any statute without holding an enquiry, natural justice and reasonable opportunity of defence will have to be read into such statutes failing which, the very exercise of such power and the manner of its exercise becomes blatantly arbitrary. More so, when an action under the statute is likely to result in loss of livelihood or cast a stigma on such employee. If the aforesaid interpretation is not given to such statutes, it would be giving absolute, unbridled and unguided power to the employer to dismiss an employee which would not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17. An instrumentality, agency or any other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India must act fairly, justly and reasonably as fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of principles of natural justice. It is apposite to quote the words of the Apex Court "reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution of India". Therefore, any act of unreasonableness or unfair treatment will fall foul of the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, power being invoked in all cases by the Gram Panchayat against any permanent employee in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the said Act to reduce them in rank, remove them or dismiss them from service on grounds of misconduct shall be only after conduct of a regular departmental enquiry."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR In the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.48068/2018 disposed on 21.10.2020, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Order at Annexure 'Q' bearing No.g.pam/aa(9)/ma.gaa.raa.gra.u.kaa.yo/CR-17/ 2016-17 passed by the second respondent dated 08.06.2016 is quashed.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is directed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on the allegations that form the basis of issuance of show cause notice and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(iv) Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits."
Though the said judgment related to the employee of a gram panchayat and in the case at hand, it is the Village Assistant in the said gram panchayat. The law declared would be the same, as violation of principles of natural justice does not depend upon the cadre of the employee. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed reserving all liberty to initiate proceedings, in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103 WP No. 108146 of 2025 HC-KAR accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E and the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-F, are hereby quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE