Karnataka High Court
Smt Kavirathna vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43474
WP No. 23026 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 23026 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KAVIRATHNA,
D/O J. K. ASHWATHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
(NOW UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION)
KOTAGARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMUKURU DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.23,
MALLEGOWDA, BADAVANE,
OPPOSITE RTO OFFICE, MADHUGIRI,
TUMKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. B. O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
signed by
KAVYA R AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH
RAJ DEPARTMENT,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43474
WP No. 23026 of 2024
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMUKURU - 572101.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI,
TUMUKURU DISTRICT - 572101.
4. THE PRESIDENT,
REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KOTAGARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101.
5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KOTAGARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
LEADING TO ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED RESOLUTION PASSED
AT SL NO.2 IN GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED 10.02.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-4 GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KOTAGARANAHALLI AND CONSEQUENTLY LETTER BEARING
NO. GRA.PA.KO/C/2023-24 DATED 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-B)
ISSUED BY THE R-5, AFTER PERUSAL TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43474
WP No. 23026 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought to assail the resolution
passed at Sl.No.2 in General Body Meeting dated
10.02.2024 at Annexure-'A', as also the proceedings at
Annexure-'B'. In terms of the impugned proceedings at
Annexure-'A', resolution was passed by the Gram
Panchayath to suspend the petitioner and recommend for
transfer of the petitioner to another Gram Panchayath.
Such resolution was communicated to the petitioner in
terms of the proceedings at Annexure-'B'. The order of
suspension of the petitioner has been communicated on
19.02.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order of suspension cannot continue indefinitely and
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary v. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC
291. It is submitted that soon after the order of
suspension, proceedings have to be taken to initiate
NC: 2024:KHC:43474
disciplinary proceedings if permissible under law and if
within three months no such decision is taken, the written
order of extension or order of suspension with reasons is
required to be passed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents admits
that the disciplinary proceedings as on the date have not
been initiated. It is however submitted that the
respondents intend to initiate disciplinary proceedings as
per law.
4. In light of such stand by the respondents,
taking note that the order of suspension has been
communicated to the petitioner on 19.02.2024 and no
order extending the same has been passed nor disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated, taking note of the
principles in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, which
mandates that within three months disciplinary
proceedings must be initiated or the order of suspension
must be extended by an order in writing giving reasons.
Noticing that none of the above two procedures are
NC: 2024:KHC:43474
followed, the order of suspension is set aside. The
respondents are reserved liberty to take disciplinary
proceedings as is permissible in law.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Needless to state, the subsistence allowance to be payable
to the petitioner during the period of suspension as per
rules, to be paid within a period of eight weeks from the
date of release of this order.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
MCR
