Karnataka High Court
Shri Veeresh S/O Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108146 OF 2025 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VEERESH S/O. VENKATESH,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: VILLAGE ASSISTANT,
THOLAMAMIDI (CURRENTLY DISMISSED),
R/O: THOLAMAMIDI-583102
KAMMARCHEDU,
TQ &DIST BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ AND SRI. SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
by NAGAVENI BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
4. THE TAHASILDAR AND
BALLARI-583101
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
RUPANAGUDI-583102
TQ AND DIST BALLARI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR
TOLAMAMIDI 583102
TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
I. WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02.09.2025 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA/PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/C¦Ã®Ä/39/2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
II. WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.09.2025 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA.PÀA:UÁæ¸À:26.2025-26 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.
III. CONSEQUENTIALLY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK TO SERVICE
FROM HIS DATE OF DISMISSAL AND GRANT HIM ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD THEREOF FLOW.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
WP No. 108146 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayers:
I. Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing
the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 bearing no.
¸ÀA/PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/C¦Ã®Ä/39/2025 passed by the Respondent no.3 as
per Annexure-E.
II. Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing
the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 bearing no.
¸ÀA.PÀA:UÁæ¸À:26.2025-26 passed by the Respondent No.4 as per
Annexure-F.
III. Consequentially a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or
direction, directing the Respondents herein to reinstate
the Petitioner back to service from his date of dismissal
and grant him all the consequential benefits that would
thereof flow.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.J.Basavaraj and
Sri.Suhas K. Hosmani, appearing for petitioner and learned
HCGP-Sri.Girija S. Hiremath, appearing for respondents.
3. The petitioner is appointed as a Village Assistant in
Kudligi Village w.e.f. 28.01.2006. Certain complaints emerged
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
against the petitioner of certain misconduct. A notice was issued
to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why
disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him.
The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. Without
holding an enquiry or considering the reply on the Show Cause
Notice so issued, the petitioner comes to be dismissed from
service. The dismissal of the petitioner is what has driven him to
this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that an employee like the petitioner who had worked from 2006
till the date he was dismissed in the year 2025, 19 years had
passed. An employee of 19 years service cannot be dismissed
without holding any enquiry that too on allegations. Learned
HCGP would however submit that for the service of the petitioner
i.e., Village Assistant, a Show Cause Notice seeking a reply
would suffice. Therefore, would seek to defend the impugned
action.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the material on record.
6. The aforesaid facts are all a matter of record.
7. The entry of the petitioner as a Village Assistant in
Kudligi village is on 28.01.2006. Show Cause Notice comes to be
issued on 15.04.2025 and the impugned order dismissing the
petitioner comes to be issued on 02.09.2025. It is an admitted
fact that no enquiry is conducted against the petitioner. Since
the employee has worked for 19 years in whatever status, he
has worked contract or temporary, he would gain a quasi
permanent status. An employee in a quasi permanent status
cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry in the least, is
the settled principle of law, particularly when the termination is
foundationed upon certain allegations. If an order of termination
casts a stigma to any kind of employee, such employee cannot
be terminated without at the outset, holding a departmental
enquiry. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
8. This court in W.P.No.55978/2016 disposed on
13.01.2021 has held as follows:
"5. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was
appointed on 13.11.2006 and his appointment was
approved in accordance with law on 30.4.2015 which
makes him a permanent employee of the fourth respondent
Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat appears to have
resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service on account
of certain allegations - complaints received by the residents
of the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner services came to be
terminated on account of allegations against him which is
evident from the order passed by the Chief Executive officer
directing dismissal of petitioner from service.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat would
place reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and
contends that the power to dismiss an employee is
available with the Gram Panchayat and no fault can be
found with the resolution of the Gram Panchayat to remove
the petitioner and the consequent order of the second
respondent - Chief Executive Officer giving a further
direction to dismiss the petitioner from service.
7. Admittedly, there is no enquiry concluded against the
petitioner prior to his dismissal from service. It is trite law
that a permanent employee of a Gram Panchayat cannot be
dismissed from service without holding an enquiry, but in
the case at hand, admittedly, no enquiry is conducted and
on the basis of a show cause notice that is issued to the
petitioner, he has been dismissed from service.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
8. In identical circumstances, this Court in
W.P.No.48068/2018 disposed on 21.10.2020, has held
as follows:
"12. The order of removal is passed
invoking Section 113(3) of the said Act, it is
germane to consider the purport of the aforesaid
Section and is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
"113. Appointment and control of
employees.- (1) Subject to the provisions
of Sections 111 and 112 the Grama
Panchayat may, with the prior approval of
the Chief Executive Officer appoint other
employees of the Grama Panchayat and pay
their salaries from the Grama Panchayat
Fund:
Provided that in making appointments
the appointing authority shall reserve posts
for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes and other socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens in the same
manner and to the same extent as is
applicable for the recruitment to posts in the
State Civil Services.
(2) The [Panchayat Development Officer]
may, by order, fine [x x x] or withhold, the
increment of any employee appointed by the
Grama Panchayat.
(3) The Grama Panchayat may reduce
in rank, remove or dismiss any
employee appointed by it.
(4) An appeal shall lie against an order
passed by the [Panchayat Development
Officer] under sub-section (2) to the
Executive Officer and against an order
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
passed by the Grama Panchayat under sub-
section (3) to the Chief Executive Officer
[xxx]
(5) Any appeal under sub-section (4)
pending before the Mandal Panchayat or the
Zilla Parishad on the date of commencement
of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993,
shall stand transferred respectively to the
Executive Officer and the Chief Executive
Officer and such appeal shall be decided by
them as if it had been filed before them."
13. The afore-extracted provision of law, no
doubt empowers the Gram Panchayat to reduce in
rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed
by it. But this cannot clothe the Gram Panchayat
with the power to remove a permanent employee
on grounds of misconduct, without holding an
enquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to
defend himself as the allegations made would
remain allegations until it is substantiated by a
process known to law failing which, it would
amount to removal of an employee on the basis of
suspicion.
14. It is trite law that any amount of
suspicion cannot take the place of proof and proof
can be arrived at only if a procedure to arrive at is
followed. Thus, conduct of a departmental
enquiry in the wake of the allegations of
misconduct is mandatory and cannot be obviated
or circumvented in any manner.
15. Though the employee of a Gram
Panchayat is not a civil servant in its true sense
and would not get the protection of Article 311(2)
of the Constitution of India nonetheless, a Gram
Panchayat being a State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and is bound by the rigors of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
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-
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 rigors of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons,
power being invoked in all cases by the Gram
Panchayat against any permanent employee in
terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the
said Act to reduce them in rank, remove them or
dismiss them from service on grounds of
misconduct shall be only after conduct of a regular
departmental enquiry."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
In the light of the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.48068/2018 disposed on 21.10.2020, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Order at Annexure 'Q' bearing
No.g.pam/aa(9)/ma.gaa.raa.gra.u.kaa.yo/CR-17/
2016-17 passed by the second respondent dated
08.06.2016 is quashed.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service
of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat and the
Gram Panchayat is directed to hold an enquiry
against the petitioner on the allegations that form
the basis of issuance of show cause notice and
conclude the same within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(iv) Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits."
Though the said judgment related to the employee of a gram
panchayat and in the case at hand, it is the Village Assistant in
the said gram panchayat. The law declared would be the same,
as violation of principles of natural justice does not depend upon
the cadre of the employee. In that light, the petition deserves to
succeed reserving all liberty to initiate proceedings, in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15103
HC-KAR
accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in
the course of the order.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed
by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E and the
impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by
respondent No.4 vide Annexure-F, are hereby
quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to
initiate proceedings against the petitioner,
bearing in mind the observations made in the
course of this order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
