Sri S E Veeranna vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5643 Kant

                                1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

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

         WRIT PETITION No.13034/2020 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SRI S E VEERANNA
SON OF SRI.SANNA ERANNA
CLERK-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
(DISMISSED),
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
NAGASAMUDRA POST
MOLAKALMURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARAYAN M NAIK, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
   RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH
   VIKASA SOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING
   3RD FLOOR, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE
   MOLAKALMURU
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577501.
                                      2



3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE
   MOLAKALMURU
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577501.

4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
   GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE
   NAGASAMUDRA
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577501.

5. THE PRESIDENT
   GRAMA PANCHYATH OFFICE
   NAGASAMUDRA
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577501.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA. FOR R1
 SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV. FOR
 SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R4
 R3 & R5 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 DATED 08.04.2020
ANNEXURE-L.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India questioning the

correctness and legality of the communication

(Annexure-L) dated 08.04.2020, wherein it is informed

that petitioner is dismissed from service w.e.f.

19.02.2020 and relieved of his duties.

2. The petition averments would indicate that

petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Data Entry

Operator in the 4th respondent- Grama Panchayath (for

short 'the Panchayath'). The appointment of the

petitioner was approved by the Zilla Panchayath under

Official Memorandum (Annexure-A), dated 30.04.2015.

When the petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Data

Entry Operator notice was issued as per (Annexure-J)

dated 09.03.2020 directing the petitioner to remit a sum

of Rs.1,12,300/- to Rajiv Gandhi Grameena Housing

Co-operative Society, since the petitioner obtained loan

in the name of his wife by furnishing false documents.

It is stated that, thereafter without conducting any

enquiry nor without providing any opportunity, the 4th

respondent-Panchayath passed resolution to dismiss

the petitioner and relieved him from duty w.e.f.

19.02.2020. It is the contention of the petitioner that

when serious allegation of misappropriation is alleged

against the petitioner, the 4th respondent-Panchayath

ought to have conducted an enquiry and ought to have

provided an opportunity to the petitioner. Dismissing

the petitioner without conducting enquiry would

amount to dismissing a person with stigma, thus it is

prayed to allow the writ petition.

3. Per contra, Sri A.C. Balraj, learned counsel for

Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondents 2 and 4 submits that since serious

allegations were alleged against the petitioner and as

the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.1,12,300/- in the

name of his wife from Rajiv Gandhi Grameena Housing

Co-operative Society, the petitioner was issued with

notice to refund the said amount and when the

petitioner failed to comply with the demand, the 4th

respondent-Panchayath passed the order resolving to

dismiss the petitioner. It is his contention that

respondent conducted preliminary enquiry in the

presence of the petitioner, as such he submits that no

formal enquiry would be necessary. Thus he prays for

dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The petitioner was appointed by 4th respondent-

Panchayath as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator and the

appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Zilla

Panchayath under its order dated 30.04.2015 as

required under Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram

Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the

1993 Act').

5. A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal

indicates that petitioner had obtained loan in sum of

Rs.1,12,300/- from Rajiv Gandhi Housing Co-operative

Society, illegally in the name of his wife by furnishing

false documents. Further it also indicates that

petitioner committed dereliction of duty, which is proved

and the 4th respondent-Panchayath resolved to dismiss

the petitioner from service. When a serious allegation of

misappropriation is alleged against the petitioner, it was

necessary for the 4th respondent-Panchayath to afford

an opportunity to the petitioner and conduct an

enquiry. Without conducting an enquiry, the 4th

respondent-Panchayath could not have come to the

conclusion that the charge of dereliction of duty is

proved against the petitioner. 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)

had an occasion to examine the order of dismissal

passed by the Panchayath and while examining the

legal position in the light of Section 113 of the 1993 Act,

the Division Bench has held that when serious

allegations are imputed, enquiry is a must before

termination. The relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 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."

6. In the instant case also, there was no enquiry

against the petitioner before passing the impugned

order of dismissal under Annexure-L dated 08.04.2020.

Therefore, the said communication requires to be set

aside with liberty to the respondents to initiate enquiry

against the petitioner in accordance with law and pass

appropriate order.

7. Hence the following order :-

a. The writ petition is allowed. Communication

dated 08.04.2020 Annexure-L communicating

dismissal of the petitioner and relieving the

petitioner from duties, is quashed.

b. Liberty is reserved to respondents 2 and 4 to

initiate enquiry against the petitioner for the

alleged dereliction of duty and misappropriation

and pass appropriate order in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NG* CT:bms