Karnataka High Court

Sri N R Chikkanna vs Budagavi Grama Panchayath on 4 December, 2021

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2018 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:
SRI N.R. CHIKKANNA,
SON OF RANGA HANUMAIAH,
R/AT BUDAGAVI VILLAGE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST - 571 138.
                                       ....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRAIAH A.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     BUDAGAVI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
       BUDAGAVI VILLAGE,
       C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
       KORATAGERE TALUK,
       TUMKUR DIST - 571 138.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.     ADHYAKSHA,
       KURAMKOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
       KURAMKOTE VILLAGE,
       C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
       KORATAGERE TALUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT - 571 138.

3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
     OFFICE OF THE TUMKUR ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
     B H ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 101.
                                   ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
                               2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10-12-2017 PASSED BY R-3
ANNEXURE-A AND THE RESOLUTION DATED 17-05-2013
PASSED BY R-1 AND R-2, ANNEXURE-B AND DIRECT R1
AND R-2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER FOR THE SAME
POST, WITH THE BACK WAGES.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of

certiorari to quash Annexure-A bearing

No.UÁæ.¥ÀA./¹(2)/«ªÀ-16/2017-18 dated 10.12.2017

whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the

resolution dated 17.05.2013 resolving to dismiss the

petitioner is rejected as well as to quash the resolution

(Annexure-B) resolving to dismiss the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri.Chandraiah, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri. A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner was appointed and working as Meti

in Inspection Bungalow at Siddarabetta. The said

Inspection Bungalow of Siddarabetta, under Office

Memorandum dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure-C) was

handed over to the 1st respondent/Grama Panchayat

by the Executive Officer to Taluk Panchayat for its

maintenance. It is the case of the petitioner that the

petitioner was working as Meti and his services was

also handed over to the 1st respondent/Grama

Panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioner

refers to Annexure-D wherein the Zilla Panchayat

directed the Grama Panchayat to pay salary for the

period from 06.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 amounting to

Rs.29,592/-per year. Relying upon the said document

the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner

was continued in Grama Panchayat to work as

waterman as well as Meti. The petitioner continued as

Waterman cum Meti in the 1st respondent/Grama

Panchayat. Under resolution dated 17.05.2013, the 1st

respondent/Grama Panchayat passed resolution to

dismiss the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner refused to work as Waterman stating that

he would do only work of Meti. The learned counsel for

the petitioner contends that no notice was issued

before passing the resolution to dismiss the petitioner

nor any enquiry is held. He states that the petitioner

has never stated that he would not do the work of

Waterman. The statement recorded by the Panchayat

is unilateral and the petitioner has never made such

statement before the Panchayat. Further, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that 3rd

Respondent/Zilla Panchayat failed to appreciate the

contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. The

3rd respondent in its order dated 10.12.2017

(Annexure-A) failed to examine as to whether the 1st

Respondent/Grama Panchayat has followed minimum

requirement of principles of natural justice while

resolving to dismiss the petitioner from Grama

Panchayat. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ

petition.

4. Per contra, Sri. A.Nagarajappa, learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits

that the petitioner was never appointed to the 1st

respondent/Grama Panchayat, as such, he is not an

employee of the Grama Panchayat. Further, he

submits that as the petitioner is not an employee of

Grama Panchayat, the question of issuing notice or

following principles of natural justice would not arise.

Sri. A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel submits that the

petitioner was working as Meti in Inspection Bungalow

at Siddarabetta and he never worked in the 1st

respondent/Grama Panchayat. Further, the learned

counsel would submit that the petitioner is vending

kerosene by obtaining license for running kerosene

dealership, hence he would not be entitled for the post

of Meti in the Grama Panchayat. Relying upon

Annexure-R1 he submits that the petitioner would not

be entitled to the relief sought.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and on perusal of writ petition papers, the

only point that would arise for consideration is:

              whether   the       1st     respondent/Grama
     Panchayat      before     passing       resolution       to

dismiss the petitioner ought to have followed principles of natural justice or not?

The answer to the above point would be that the

respondent ought to have provided an opportunity to

the petitioner before passing resolution to dismiss the

petitioner.

6. The petitioner was working as Meti in

Inspection Bungalow at Siddarabetta. The said

Inspection Bungalow was handed over by the

Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Koratagere to

the 1st respondent/Grama Panchayat under Office

Memorandum dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure-C) for

better maintenance. On handing over the Inspection

Bungalow to the Grama Panchayat the petitioner

services was also handed over to the Panchayat. As

could be seen from Annexure-D, wherein the Zilla

Panchayat directs the 1st respondent/Grama

Panchayat to pay salary for the period from

06.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Unless the petitioner was

taken over by the Panchayat along with Inspection

Bungalow, the 3rd respondent/Zilla Panchayat would

not have directed the Panchayat to pay salary to the

petitioner.

7. The resolution at Annexure-B dated

17.05.2013 in respect of subject No.2 reads as

follows:

2) §ÆzÀUÀ« UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ F §UÉÎ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è ZÀað¸À¯ÁV §ÆzÀUÀ« ªÀ±ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀ¸Àw UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀ¸Àw UÀÈºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ UÀÈºÀªÀ£ÀÄß F »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°è G½¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ J£ï.Dgï.aPÀÌtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÃ«Ä¹ PÉ®¸À §UÉÎ. ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

DzÀgÉ ªÀ¸Àw UÀÈºÀ¢AzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀªÁV vÀÄA¨Á £ÀµÀÖ DUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀµÀ×ªÀ£ÄÀ ß

¨sÀj¸À®Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ°è DzÁAiÀÄ E®èzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀ¸Àw UÀÈºÀzÀ ªÉÄÃnUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀµ×À ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¢.17/5/13 jAzÀ eÁjUÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀ¸Àw UÀÈºÀzÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ CzÀgÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è EqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄÄ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹vÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï ºÁUÀÆ L.©.ªÉÄÃnAiÀiÁV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÝÀ ²æÃ.J£ï.Dgï.aPÀÌtÚ ©£ï gÀAUÀºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÄÀ L© ªÉÄÃn PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁV, ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï PÉ®¸À EªÀgÉÃ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÉAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ|| ¥ÀA| PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁV EªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäPÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀ J£ï.Dgï.aPÀÌtÚ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëUÉ PÀgÉ¹ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß ¢.18-5-2013 jAzÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¢AzÀ ªÀeÁ UÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸À¨És wÃªÀiÁð¤¹vÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀ£À ªÉÃvÀ£À K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ¨ÁQ EzÀÝ°è FUÀ¯ÉÃ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ ¤Ãr ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ M¦à wÃªÀiÁð¤¹vÀÄ.

A reading of the above resolution would

abundantly makes it clear that Chikkanna, the

petitioner was working as Meti in Inspection

Bungalow, continued to work as waterman cum

Inspection Bungalow Meti by the Panchayath. Unless

the petitioner was treated as an employee of the 1st

respondent Grama Panchayat, there was no necessity

or requirement of passing resolution to dismiss the

petitioner. Because petitioner was working as

Waterman-cum-Meti, in the Panchayat, the

respondent resolved to dismiss the petitioner from the

Panchayat. The Panchayat resolved to dismiss the

petitioner solely recording that the petitioner has

refused to work as Waterman. There is no material to

show or establish, such statement of the petitioner

refusing to work as Waterman. On the otherhand

during the course of argument, it is submitted that the

petitioner is ready to carry out any work in the

Panchayat. It appears that the petitioner is removed

from work of Waterman and Meti only to appoint some

other person as Waterman as could be seen from

subject No.3 in the same resolution. Under subject

No.3, the Panchayat appointed one Rangappa @

Siddappa as Waterman. The appointment of Rangappa

@ Siddappa makes it clear that only to appoint the

said person the petitioner's service appears to have

been terminated by the Panchayat.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent that the petitioner has obtained

kerosene license and he is doing business of the

kerosene vending, hence, the petitioner is not entitled

for continuation of the service under the 1st

respondent/Grama Panchayat is untenable. Since the

petitioner was removed from service, to eke-out his

livelihood, the petitioner would have obtained

kerosene licence. On that ground the petitioner would

not be entitled for backwages. It is to be noted that

no notice whatsoever indicating the reason for the

discontinuation of the petitioner nor to dismiss the

petitioner is issued. When the Panchayat makes

certain allegations against a person unless the person

is provided with an opportunity, the Panchayat could

not dismiss or terminate an employee.

9. The Division Bench of this Court in

Devendra -Vs- State of Karnataka, Department

of Panchayatraj by its Secretary, Bangalore and

others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 66 observed that

when allegations are attributed against a person,

enquiry under Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram

Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 would be

necessary. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"14. Removal from service and also reduction in rank and termination of an employee are all very serious matters, which will have very serious impact and consequences on the employee particularly, when the serious allegations of misconduct is alleged against the employee which will have a serious adverse effect on the future of the employee and it will definitely cast a stigma on the employee. It is further made clear here itself that if a temporary

employee or probationer to whom the particular Rules of KCS are not applicable even then the principles of natural justice have to be applied. However, if an order simpliciter passed before completion of probation or even the employee is a temporary employee without making any allegations of his misconduct or any allegations, which cast stigma on him, in such eventuality, the following of principles of natural justice as noted above need not be necessary. In the above said background, now we come to the order impugned in this petition.

15. It is not the case of the Government, which passed Annexure-H that they have conducted any disciplinary enquiry on the petitioner before passing such an order. The order clearly discloses that some serious allegations are made against the petitioner that, his conduct was not good and he has misappropriated the amount of the Gram Panchayat and also misbehaved himself with the officials in the Panchayat etc. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. The Order dated 02.11.2016 which is impugned in this petition also discloses that only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Karnataka Lokayukta, it has been passed. The order does

not disclose that after receipt of the recommendation made by the Karnataka Lokayukta, any notice has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority for conducting enquiry against the petitioner in order to pass any order as contemplated under Section 113 of the Gram Panchayat Act. Therefore, in our opinion the said order is against the general principles of natural justice and as such the same is not in consonance with the principles laid down in various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court noted above.

Therefore, the impugned official memoranda being in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the afore-extracted judgments and the rules aforesaid is unsustainable."

10. The 3rd respondent-Zilla Panchayat failed to

properly exercise its appellate power. The appellate

authority ought to have examined as to whether

principles of natural justice was followed or not while

Grama Panchayat passing resolution to dismiss the

petitioner. Whether petitioner is a temporary

employee or a permanent employee, he was entitled

for atleast a show cause notice.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is

allowed. Resolution dated 17.05.2013, Annexure-B as

well as Appellate Order dated 10.12.2017, bearing

No.UÁæ.¥ÀA./¹(2)/«ªÀ-16/2017-18, Annexure-A are