Smt Mamatha vs Sri Nanjundaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 1864 Kant

                             -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                             AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT APPEAL NO.97 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:
SMT MAMATHA
AGE 37 YEARS
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MAYASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 107.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     SRI NANJUNDAIAH
       S/O NANJAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
       R/O ARAKERE VILLAGE,
       DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI,
       TURUVEKERE TALUK
       TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 215.

2.     THE CHIEF SECRETARY
       ZILLA PANCHAYATH
       TUMKUR DISTRICT
       TUMKUR - 572 101.

3.    THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
      DANDINASHIVARA GRAMA
      PANCHAYATH TURUVEKERE TALUK,
      TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 215.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R2)
                              -2-



     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2021 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN W.P. NO.315/2016 (LB-RES)
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

The captioned writ appeal is filed by Smt.Mamatha

who claims to be the Panchayat Development Officer of

Mayasandra Grama Panchayath, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru

Rural District.

2. This appeal is filed questioning a portion of the

order under challenge wherein the learned Single Judge,

having examined the rival contentions of the parties, was of

the view that the demolition which was carried out at the

instance of the present appellant was without any enquiry

and the same is in violation of the principles of natural

justice. At paragraph 10 of the order, the learned Single

Judge has come to the conclusion that the present

appellant who was the Panchayat Development Officer at

the relevant point of time when the demolition was carried

out has acted highhandedly and therefore, directed the

Director of Municipal Administration to fix the responsibility

on the said officer and hold a departmental enquiry for

having acted in an arbitrary manner and consequently, the

demolition was found to be on account of misuse of public

office. It is in this backdrop, a specific observation was also

made by the learned Single Judge that a Departmental

Enquiry shall be initiated after affording an opportunity of

hearing.

3. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the

observations made by the learned Single Judge at

paragraphs 10 and 12 of the said order would not prejudice

the rights of the appellant.

4. Reserving liberty to the appellant to contest the

enquiry in the event the superior authority initiates

departmental enquiry, this writ appeal stands disposed of.

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS