Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vilas S/O. Satish Patil vs The Chief Executive Officer on 2 July, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
WP No. 101483 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.101483 OF 2021(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VILAS S/O. SATISH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BILL COLLECTOR
AT KASABA NANDAGAD GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI,
R/O: ZUNJAWAD KN VILLAGE,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BELAGAVI,
Digitally DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
signed by V N
BADIGER
Location: 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
High Court of
Karnataka TALUK PANCHAYATH, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYATH KASABA NANDAGAD,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KASABA NANDAGAD, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
WP No. 101483 of 2021
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED
08.08.2017 BEARING NO. PÀ¸
æ A
À : UÁæ¥A
À PÀ¸/À «ªÀ/ 2020-21 PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-D AN ORDER BEARING
NO.KANA/SIBANDHI/2017-18 DATED 08.08.2017 PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND THE ORDER BEARING
NO. PÀ¸
æ A
À :f¥ÀA/ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ/ UÁæ¥A
À ¹/ C¦üî/ «ªÀ:519/ 2018-19 DATED
06.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-L
AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL
JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by
the order, dated 08.08.2017, produced at Annexure-D
passed by respondent No.3-Panchayat, by which the
services of the petitioner has been terminated, which was
communicated vide Annexure-E and also aggrieved by the
order, dated 06.12.2019, passed by the respondent No.1 -
Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioner under Section 113(4) of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and for further direction to
respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to discharge his
duty, as per the resolution, dated 12.01.2018.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
2. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner was
appointed as Bill Collector in the Office of respondent No.4
in the year 2007. That, he has been rendering his service
as such. That, by show cause notice, dated 06.07.2016,
the respondent Gram Panchayat had called upon the
petitioner to showcase why suitable disciplinary action
should not be taken against him for he submitting forged
receipts for having collected the property tax for the year
2015-16 to the tune of Rs.7,796/-. The petitioner had
issued reply to the said Show cause notice as per
Annexure-B. Thereafter, yet another Show cause notice
was issued on 22.07.2017, by the respondent-Gram
Panchayat, alleging that the petitioner attended the duty
in an intoxicated state and thus, called upon him to show
cause why the action should not be taken. Without
conducting any enquiry, pursuant to the said show cause
notices, the respondent-Gram Panchayat, by resolution,
dated 08.08.2017, resolved to dismiss the petitioner from
his services forthwith.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
3. That, subsequently by resolution dated
07.11.2017, produced at Annexure-F, the respondent-
Gram Panchayat resolved to recall the earlier order /
resolution dated 08.08.2017 of dismissal and had
forwarded the communication to the Development Officer,
who had since not implemented the same, respondent-
Panchayat had made a representation to the Chief
Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. The Chief Executive
Officer, Taluk Panchayat had in turn directed the
Panchayat Development Officer to implement the said
resolution and to submit the report regarding the action
taken. When things stood thus, the Development Officer,
in the meeting that was held on 12.01.2018 had brought
to the notice of the respondent-Panchayat that once the
services of the petitioner was terminated, the Panchayat
could not have recalled the said resolution, as there was a
provision for appeal provided under the Act before the
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Consequently, the
petitioner was informed to file an appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
4. The petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal
under Section 113(4) of the Act, 1993. By the impugned
order, at Annexure-L, respondent No.1, Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi dismissed the appeal,
holding that, the removal of the petitioner from the
services was in compliance with the natural justice as he
had not replied to the show cause notice that were issued.
That, since he was terminated from service, the Gram
Panchayat could not have passed the resolution of his
reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
petition submits that, the removal of the petitioner by the
respondent-Gram Panchayat, by its resolution, dated
08.08.2017 is on a serious allegation of misappropriation,
misconduct and negligence in duty. He submits that, the
said order of removal from service could not have been
passed without conducting disciplinary enquiry. In support
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
of his submission, learned counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 21st
October 2020, passed in the case of S.K. Shankarappa
S/o. late Kempa Bovi Vs. the panchayath
Development Officer and another, (for short "S.K.
Shankarappa") he also relies upon the subsequent
Government Notification dated 29th September 2020
issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Grama
Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay,
Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of Service of
Employees of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (for short
"the Rules, 2020") providing for staffing pattern, scale of
pay, method of recruitment and other conditions of service
of employees of Grama Panchayat. Thus, relying upon the
same, he submits that, the removal of the petitioner from
his services without conducting the enquiry was thus,
unsustainable, requiring interference at the hands of this
Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
6. In response, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 justifying the orders impugned
submits that, before removal of petitioner from his
services, show cause notices were issued and the
petitioner did not choose to reply to the same. He submits
that, since there is no provision provided under the Act for
conducting of the enquiry and as per the law prevailing as
on that date, no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner
was removed from services. In support of his case, he
relies upon the judgment in the case of H. Rajappa And
Anr. vs Haronahalli Grama Panchayat And Ors.1. He
however fairly submits that, in view of the subsequent
judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of S.K. Shankarappa (supra) and in view of
the Notification dated 29th September 2020 referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, providing for
conditions of service of the employees of Grama
ILR 2005 KAR 1443
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
Panchayat, the petitioner may be provided an opportunity
of subjecting himself to the enquiry.
7. The submission is taken on record.
8. Heard. Perused the records.
9. There is no dispute of the fact that except
issuing show cause notices, no enquiry has been
conducted in the matter of allegations made against the
petitioner of misappropriation / fabricating the documents
and attending the Office in an intoxicated condition. This
allegation being serious in nature, the petitioner ought to
have been subjected to an enquiry, which is expected of
the respondent authorities. The principles of employees
like petitioner being provided with an opportunity of being
heard, has been recognized and enunciated by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order passed in the
case of S.K. Shankarappa (supra) and this Court finds
same being applicable to the facts of the present case.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
10. That apart, the State of Karnataka itself has
now framed the Rules, 2020, which contemplate the
manner and method of conducting the enquiry. Though
the said Rules have come into force subsequent to the
impugned order passed, the requirement of petitioner
being provided with an opportunity of being heard in
accordance with the principles of natural justice cannot be
denied. Besides, the said requirement needs to
substantive and not merely on empty formality.
11. In view of the aforesaid submission made by
the learned counsel appearing or the respondents and for
the reasons noted this Court is of the considered view
that, the petition deserves to be allowed, accordingly, the
same is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2017
produced at Annexure-D passed by respondent No.3-
Panchayat is set aside, consequently the order dated
06.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 is also set aside;
respondent No.3 - Panchayat shall initiate disciplinary
proceedings as contemplated under the Rules, 2020 and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9001
after affording an opportunity to the petitioner thereafter
pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of six (6)
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
SD/-
JUDGE
VNP*/CT-ASC
