Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajan K G vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
WP No. 15423 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 15423 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJAN K G
S/O GOPAL KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A KUTTA VILLAGE,
PONNAMPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571250.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMRUDH SURAJ HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ,
Digitally VIDHANA SOUDHA,
signed by
ALBHAGYA BANGALORE-560 001.
Location:
HIGH 2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
COURT OF KUTTA GRAM PANCHAYATH KUTTA,
KARNATAKA VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU 571 250.
3. PRESIDENT KUTTA GRAM PANCHAYAT
KUTTA GRAM PANCHAYAT,
KUTTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU 571 250.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P B ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
WP No. 15423 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ORDER OF SUSPENSION PASSED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2
ANNEXURE-A AND DROP ANY ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
order of dismissal dated 02.03.2022 vide Annexure-B
passed by respondent No.2.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner claims to be employed with
respondent No.2/Kutta Gram Panchayat. The petitioner
contends that he was appointed in 2011 as an Attender.
The respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.12.2021 placed
the petitioner under suspension from the post of Attender
on the ground that petitioner has indulged in
misappropriating the funds and is also found guilty of
fudging receipts. Having placed the petitioner under
suspension vide order dated 31.12.2021, respondent No.2
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
has proceeded to dismiss the petitioner vide order dated
02.03.2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
learned AGA for respondent No.1.
4. The order under challenge would not detain this
Court for long. On examining the impugned order under
challenge, this Court would find that the order of dismissal
prima facie is found to be in gross violation of principles of
natural justice. Having placed petitioner under suspension
on 31.12.2021, respondent No.2 vide order dated
02.03.2022 has dismissed the petitioner from service.
This Court deems it fit to cull out the impugned order
under challenge. The same reads as under:
"PÀZÉÃj DzÉñÀ
PÀÄlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è CmÉAqÀgï DV PÉ®¸À
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï DzÀ ªÀĺÉñï.©.J£ï
¸ÉÃj vÉjUÉ gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr gÀÆ 6,41,676 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ
31/12/2021gÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À «ZÁgÀuɪÀgÉUÉ
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Ý
C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ DUÀ«Ä¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß
¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÃAzÀæ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
«ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁUÀzÉ ¤®ðPÀë ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj. ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄð£À
zÉÆÃóóµÀgÉÆ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ZÁgÀt ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ
02/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAr¹, 9 ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ
§ºÀĪÀÄvÀzÀ wêÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß
CmÉAqÀgï ºÀÄzÉݬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
5. On examining the order under challenge, this
Court would find that the order of dismissal is not
preceded by reasons. The order also does not indicate
that on what ground respondent No.2 has resolved to
dismiss the petitioner from service. The order is not only
found to be cryptic but this Court is more than satisfied
that the enquiry is not fair and just.
6. This Court in a reported judgment rendered in
the case of S.K.Shankarappa vs. The Panchayath
Development Officer and Another1 while examining the
identical case held that even in case of an employer
pertaining to Gram Panchayat, any order that would be
W.P.No.48068/2018 Dtd: 21.10.2020
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
passed under the provisions of Panchayat Act has to be
preceded by proper enquiry and by complying the
principles of natural justice. This Court at paras 16 and 17
has held as under:
"16. Therefore, even if a provision bestows
power upon the employer to remove an employee
for misconduct under any statute without holding
an enquiry, natural justice and reasonable
opportunity of defence will have to be read into
such statutes failing which, the very exercise of
such power and the manner of its exercise becomes
blatantly arbitrary. More so, when an action under
the statute is likely to result in loss of livelihood or
cast a stigma on such employee. If the aforesaid
interpretation is not given to such statutes, it would
be giving absolute, unbridled and unguided power
to the employer to dismiss an employee which
would not stand the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
17. An instrumentality, agency or any other
authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India must act fairly, justly and reasonably as fair
treatment is an essential inbuilt of principles of
natural justice. It is apposite to quote the words of
the Apex Court "reasonableness and non-
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional
spectrum and is a golden thread which runs
through the whole fabric of the Constitution of
India." Therefore, any act of unreasonableness or
unfair treatment will fall foul of the rights of Article
14 of the Constitution of India."
7. In the light of law laid down by the coordinate
Bench of this Court, the order of dismissal suffers from
arbitrariness and therefore, the same is not sustainable.
8. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order of dismissal dated
02.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby
quashed;
(iii) The matter is remitted back to
respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 after
notifying the petitioner shall hold an enquiry;
NC: 2024:KHC:1112
(iv) It is open for the petitioner to offer his
explanation in support of his contention;
(v) Respondent No.3 shall thereafter
proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law;
(vi) Pending enquiry, respondent No.2 shall
pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
