Karnataka High Court
R. Narendra Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
WP No. 27607 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 27607 OF 2023 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
R. NARENDRA BABU
S/O LATE T RAMU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE
V V PURA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577598
R/AT JANATHA COLONY
V V PURA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577598.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
COURTOF AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
KARNATAKA
M S BUIDING, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHITRADURGA ZILLA PANCHAYATH
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA 577501.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
HIRIYUR TALUK PANCHAYATH
HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577598.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
WP No. 27607 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
VANIVILASAPURA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
VANIVILASAPURA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577598.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1:
SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3:
R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AMD
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED: 01/02/2022 IN NO.
VIGRAPAM/SIBBANDI.CR-01/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F, THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
CONTRARY TO 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. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
01.02.2022 passed by the fourth respondent vide
Annexure-F, whereby, he has been removed from service.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially
appointed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator by the
fourth respondent, by order dated 17.11.2015 vide
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
HC-KAR
Annexure-A. When he was so working, the fourth
respondent - Panchayat, by the impugned order dated
01.02.2022 vide Annexure-F removed him from service.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before
this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the impugned order at Annexure-F is
passed without issuing any notice and the same is in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
(ii) Secondly, if any action has to be taken against the
employees of the Grama Panchayat, it is covered by the
rules framed under the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and
Panchayatraj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay, Method of
Recruitment and other Conditions of service of employees
of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the said
Rules'). Without following the due procedure prescribed
under the 2020 Rules, the impugned order has been
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
HC-KAR
passed. In support of his contentions, he relied on the
decision of this Court in W.P.No.1329/2021 c/w. W.P.No.
1213/2021 disposed of on 10.02.2021, which is produced
at Annexure-H to this petition and also a judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.543/2023 disposed
of on 11.01.2024. Therefore, he sought for allowing the
writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned AGA appearing
for the State have raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the impugned order is passed on
01.02.2022 and the writ petition is filed on 25.11.2023,
after a lapse of one year ten months. There is a delay in
approaching this Court. On the ground of delay, this writ
petition has to be dismissed.
(ii) Secondly, being aggrieved by the impugned order
- Annexure-F, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
HC-KAR
appeal under Section 113 (4) of the Karnataka
Panchayatraj Act, 1993.
(iii) Thirdly, there is a criminal case initiated against
the petitioner by registering FIR for an offence under
Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Hence, he has been dismissed from service. Therefore, he
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
appointed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator on
17.11.2015 vide Annexure-A in the fourth respondent -
Grama Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that FIR has
been registered against the petitioner for an offence under
Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
impugned order Annexure-F is passed without following
the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed under
the Panchayatraj Act. This Court in W.P.No.1329/2021, in
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
HC-KAR
similar circumstances, quashed the dismissal order and
directed the competent authority to hold an enquiry
against the petitioner as contemplated under the Rules
and pass appropriate orders. Even a Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.543/2023 has held that only on the
ground that there is registration of the criminal case
against the employee and the same is still pending, he
cannot be dismissed from service without holding an
enquiry. In the case on hand, the impugned order is
passed without holding an enquiry as provided under the
Rules.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable
to be set aside. Admittedly, there is a delay of one year
ten months in approaching this Court and the allegations
against the petitioner are very serious in nature. Under
the circumstances, he cannot be re-instated into service.
The respondents be directed to conclude the enquiry as
expeditiously as possible.
8. Hence, the following order is passed:
NC: 2025:KHC:18870
HC-KAR
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 01.02.2022
passed by the fourth respondent vide
Annexure-F is set aside.
(iii) The respondent - competent authority is
directed to hold an enquiry against the
petitioner as contemplated under the said
Rules and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, within six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If
the enquiry is not initiated within six months,
the respondents are directed to re-instate the
petitioner into service.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
