Budagavi Grama Panchayath vs Sri. N. R. Chikkanna
2023 Latest Caselaw 7386 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:38265-DB
                                                         WA No. 809 of 2023



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                           PRESENT

                   THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                             AND

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2023 (S-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   BUDAGAVI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                   BUDAGAVI VILLAGE, C. N DURGA HOBLI,
                   KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKURU DIST.
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    SRI. N. R. CHIKKANNA,
                         S/O RANGA HANUMAIAH,
Digitally signed
by SHARADA               AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
VANI B                   R/O BUDAGAVI VILLAGE, C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST- 571 138.
KARNATAKA
                   2.    ADHYAKASHA,
                         KURAMKOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                         KURAMKOTE VILLAGE, C N DURGA HOBLI,
                         KORATAGERE TALUK,
                         TUMAKURU DISTRICT 571 138.

                   3.    THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                         OFFICE OF THE TUMAKURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH
                         B H ROAD, TUMAKURU. 572 101.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:38265-DB
                                               WA No. 809 of 2023



     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/12/2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.481/2018 AND DISMISS
THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND B) PASS AN Y ORDER(s) OR
DIRECTION(s) AND C) AWARD COST OF THIS PROCEEDINGS.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal seeks to call in question a

learned Single Judge's order dated 04.12.2021 whereby 1st

respondent's W.P.No.481/2018 (S-RES) having been

favoured, the resolution dated 17.05.2013 as affirmed by

the appellate order dated 10.12.2017 having been

quashed, the appellant -Grama Panchayath is directed to

reinstate the 1st respondent as Waterman-cum-Meti,

liberty being reserved for taking action in accordance with

law.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant -

Grama Panchayath vehemently seeks to falter the

impugned order contending that the 1st respondent was

never in the employ of the Grama Panchayath; even

NC: 2023:KHC:38265-DB WA No. 809 of 2023

otherwise, the post in question is not sanctioned and

therefore, the reinstatement could not have been directed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and having perused the appeal papers, we

decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in

agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge.

Removal from employment is a serious matter inasmuch

as in a society like ours, more often than not, the job is

the only source of livelihood. Therefore, an order for

removal could not have been passed without an

opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned, when

God himself is said to have given an opportunity of

hearing to Adam and Eve before punishing them for eating

the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden, going by the

biblical stories.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the Grama

Panchayath that never was the 1st respondent in the

employment is bit difficult to countenance. Had he not

been in employment, how is that the resolution came to be

NC: 2023:KHC:38265-DB WA No. 809 of 2023

passed by the Panchayath on 17.05.2013 for removal from

service, remains unexplained. Similarly, the other

contention as to the post in question not being sanctioned.

There is a method and a procedure for resorting to

removal of an employee from service. Grama Panchayath

being a statutory body now constitutionally recognized

vide Part IX has to act as a model employer and not as a

private entity that hires and fires.

In the above circumstances, the writ appeal being

devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.

However, liberty reserved by the learned Single Judge for

taking the action, is left intact.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb,