The Chief Executive Officer vs B Latha
2022 Latest Caselaw 5345 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. No.1287 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   ZILLA PANCHAYATH
   CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
   DISTRICT-577501.

2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   TALUK PANCHAYATH
   CHITRADURGA TALUK
   AND DISTRICT-577501.

3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
   INGALADAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
   CHITRADURGA TALUK
   AND DISTRICT-577501.
                                              ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV., FOR
    MR. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     B. LATHA
       D/O LATE BASAVARAJA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       R/AT. DODDASIDDAVANAHALLI
       VILLAGE AND POST
       CHITRADURGA TALUK
       AND DISTRICT-577501.
                               2




2.   THE OMBUDSMAN
     ZILLA PANCHAYATH
     CHITRADURGA TALUK
     AND DISTRICT-577501.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C, ADV., C/R1)
                         ---

     THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS.         SET ASIDE THE

ORDER   PASSED    BY   THE   LEARNED    SINGLE    JUDGE   IN

W.P.NO.23998/2016 DATED 20.09.2021 AND TO DISMISS THE

WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.       AND TO GRANT

SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT

APPEAL WITH COSTS.



     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS

DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                       JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal arises from an order dated

20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which writ

petition preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed and

a writ of mandamus has been issued to the Panchayat to

reinstate the services of respondent No.1 against the post of

computer operator. The Panchayat has also been granted the

liberty to initiate proceedings against respondent No.1 after

following due process of law within a period of six months.

The employee has however been held entitled to back wages

to the extent of 25%. In order to appreciate the appellant's

challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention,

which are stated infra.

2. The employee was appointed on the basis against

the post of computer operator on 31.07.2007 on temporary

basis for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, on 28.06.2013

the resolution was passed terminating the services of the

employee. However, it is pertinent to note that in pursuance

of the aforesaid resolution, no order of termination was

passed by the Panchayat against the employer. It appears

that some of the members of the Panchayat raised a dispute

before the ombudsman with regard to misappropriation of

funds against the then President of the Panchayat and

Panchayat Development Officer. The Ombudsman in the

order dated 04.03.2013 while dealing with a complaint filed

by the members of the Panchayat inter alia held that the

employee shall not be considered for appointment to the post

of computer operator in future in any other Panchayat. The

employee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated

04.03.2013 passed by the ombudsman, which was allowed

by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 29.12.2014

inter alia on the ground that the ombudsman has no power

to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to service matters under

Section 2(69A) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The

employee thereupon submitted a representation to the

Panchayat for reinstatement and thereafter issued a notice

on 06.07.2015. Thereafter, the employee filed a writ petition

namely W.P. No.23889/2016 seeking the following reliefs:

31/07.2007 - On the basis of the communication of the Member of Parliament, the respondent No.1 herein was appointed on temporary basis for period of 11 months as Computer Operator for implementation of the Karnataka Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

28.06.2013 -On the basis of the complaints received against the respondent No.1 of collecting bribe of Rs.100/- for issuing job cards and also transfer of amount payable to

daily wag earners into her account incollusion with the then Panchayath Development Officer, resolution was passed to discharge the services of the respondent No.1 and she was discharged from service since, she was appointed on temporary basis under the scheme.

3. The appellants appeared in the proceedings and

before the learned Single Judge and filed their statement of

objections. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

20.09.2021 inter alia held that respondent No.1 was

reinstated by resolution of the Grama Panchayat, which was

passed on 07.11.2014. It was further held that some of the

members had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority

against the order passed by the ombudsman that the

employee should be terminated from service and should not

be appointed as computer operator in any other Grama

Panchayath which was allowed by an order dated

29.12.2014. Accordingly, the directions were issued to the

appellants herein to reinstate the respondent No.1 along with

25% back wages. However, liberty was also granted to the

Grama Panchayat to conduct an enquiry against the

respondent No.2 if so advised within a period of six months.

4. The Panchayat filed this intra-court appeal in which a

division bench of this court passed an ad interim order dated

11.01.2022 by which direction of the learned Single Judge in

so far as it pertains to payment of back wages to the extent

of 25% was stayed. It appears that after obtaining stay from

the division bench of this court, the Panchayat conducted an

enquiry against the respondent and by resolution dated

23.02.2022, which has been passed during the pendency of

this appeal and after obtaining interim order from this court

has resolved to terminate the service of the employee.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

learned Single judge grossly erred in holding that some

members of the Panchayat had filed an appeal before the

ombudsman. It is further submitted that there is no order of

the Appellate Authority directing the Panchayat to reinstate

the services of the employee . It is further submitted that the

Panchayat had terminated the services of the employee by

resolution dated 28.06.2013, which was challenged by the

employee. It is also submitted that there is no directions

contained in the order of Appellate Authority dated

29.12.2014 directing reinstatement of services of the

employee. On the other hand learned counsel for the

employee has supported the order passed by learned Single

judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. Admittedly the employee

was initially employed as a computer operator on temporary

basis for a period of 11 months. On 31.07.2007, her tenure

of appointment was extended from time to time. It appears

that by resolution dated 28.06.2013, the Panchayat resolved

to terminate the services of the employee. However, in

pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, no order was passed.

There is no material on record to indicate that the aforesaid

resolution dated 28.06.2013, which was passed behind the

back of the employee was ever communicated to her. The

proceedings before the ombudsman arose out of a complaint

made by some of the members of the Panchayat against the

President and the Panchayat Development Officer. In the

aforesaid proceedings, the employee was also heard.

However, the ombudsman by an order dated 04.12.2013

directed that the employee shall not be considered for

appointment to the post of computer operator in any other

Grama Panchayat. In the meanwhile, the Panchayat passed a

resolution on 07.11.2014, by which it resolved to reinstate

the service of the employee. It is pertinent to mention here

that the resolution dated 07.11.2014 was not challenged by

the Panchayat before any forum. Merely because, there was

some disagreement of the members of the Panchayat while

passing the resolution, the same does not render the

resolution in effective in law. The resolution which has been

passed is now binding on the Panchayat. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge taking into account the aforesaid

resolution, rightly directed the Panchayat to reinstate the

services of the employee.

7. So far as the submission made by learned counsel

for the appellants that subsequent to grant of interim order

dated 11.01.2022 in this appeal, the Panchayat has

conducted an enquiry and thereafter by resolution dated

23.02.2022 has terminated the services of the appellant is

concerned, suffice it to say, that if any action taken during

the pendency of the proceedings of a court, the same is

subject to final outcome of the proceedings. It is improper on

the part of the Panchayat to conduct an enquiry after

obtaining an interim order from a division bench of this court.

The Panchayat which is a public body in all fairness ought to

have implemented the direction pertaining to reinstatement

of the services of the respondent No.1 and thereafter, in view

of the liberty granted to the employee ought to have

proceeded against her. However, the action of the Panchayat

in terminating the services of the employee without even

reinstating her cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Therefore, the resolution which has been placed on record by

the counsel for the appellants dated 23.02.2022 is hereby

quashed.

8. The Panchayat is directed to reinstate the employee

in service within a period of three weeks. However, taking

into account the fact that the Panchayat itself had passed a

resolution on 07.11.2014 to reinstate the services of the

respondent No.1 pursuant to which her service were not

reinstated, the learned Single judge has rightly held the

employee entitled to 25% of back wages.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

the same fails and is here by dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS