[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nandeesha Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
WP No. 200998 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200998 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NANDEESHA KUMAR
S/O RAJSHEKHARSWAMI,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: BAREFOOT TECHNICIAN (BFT),
AT BYAGWAT AND NAKKUNDI GRAM PANCHAYATS,
R/O. BYAGWAT VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI,
DIST.RAICHUR-584123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
SWETA KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALORE-560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585101.
3. THE TALUKA EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT MANVI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
WP No. 200998 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GRAM PANCHAYAT BYAGWAT, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
5. BASAVARAJ NAKKUNDI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK,
R/O.BYAGWAT VILLAGE, TQ.MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
V/O DTD. 10.03.2026 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 03-02-2025
BEARING NO. ¸ÀA:vÁ¥ÀAªÀiÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/©J¥sïn/2024-25/915 AT
ANNEXURE-L; B) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 19-02-2025 AND
28-02-2025 AT ANNEXURE-M AND M1 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY BEARING NO.
¸ÀA:f¥ÀAgÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ-3/¹§âA¢/©J¥sïn /²PÀ/æ 2024-25 AND BEARING NO.
¸ÀA:vÁ¥ÀAªÀiÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/©J¥sïn/²PÀ/æ 2024-25/1008 RESPECTIVELY; C)
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED RELIEVE ORDER VIDE NO.
GRA.PAM.BYA/B.F.T/BI.MA.KU/2024-25 DATED 17-03-2025 AT
ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4. D) PASS ANY
SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS COURT ON
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
WP No. 200998 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed seeking for the reliefs:
"a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
enquiry report submitted by the respondent no.3 to
the office of respondent no.2 dated 03-02-2025
bearing No. ¸ÀA:vÁ¥ÀAªÀiÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/©J¥sïn/2024-25/915 at
Annexure-L;
b) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned letter dated 19-02-2025 and 28-02-2025
at Annexure-M and M1 issued by respondent No.2
and 3 respectively bearing no. ¸ÀA:f¥ÀAgÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ-
3/¹§âA¢/©J¥sïn /²PÀ/æ 2024-25 and bearing no.
¸ÀA:vÁ¥ÀAªÀiÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ/©J¥sïn/²PÀ/æ 2024-25/1008 respectively;
c) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned relieve order vide no.
gra.pam.bya/b.f.t/bi.ma.ku/ 2024-25 dated 17-03-
2025 at Annexure-N issued by respondent No.4.
d) Pass any such other relief/s as deemed fit by this
court on the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner claims that he was appointed for the
post of Barefoot Technician in respondent No.3 - Gram
Panchayat vide order at Annexure-A dated 28.11.2012. It
appears that respondent No.5 herein had submitted a
complaint to respondent No.2 on 13.11.2024 alleging that
petitioner was demanding illegal gratification for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
purpose of clearing the bills for the work done under the
MGNREGA scheme. It was also alleged that petitioner was
misbehaving with the MGNREGA labourers. It appears
that respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.3 to
consider the complaint of respondent No.5 and initiate
appropriate action against the petitioner. Respondent
No.3 in turn had issued communication dated 27.11.2024
at Annexure-D to respondent No.4 to consider the
complaint of respondent No.5 and initiate action. Pursuant
to the same, respondent No.4 had issued a show-cause
notice to the petitioner vide Annexure-E and the petitioner
had submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice vide
Annexure-F.
4. It appears that subsequently respondent No.4
has forwarded the show-cause notice as well as the reply
given by the petitioner to the said show-cause notice, to
respondent No.3 vide communication dated 30.12.2024 at
Annexure-G for taking appropriate action against the
petitioner. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.3 had
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
initiated enquiry against the petitioner and has submitted
an Enquiry Report to respondent No.2 on 03.02.2025 vide
Annexure-L. Considering the said Enquiry Report,
respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3 to relieve
the petitioner from service vide communication dated
19.02.2025 at Annexure-M and consequently respondent
No.3 has directed respondent No.4 to relieve the petitioner
from service vide Annexure-M1 dated 28.02.2025.
Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued communication
Annexure-N dated 17.03.2025 to the petitioner informing
him that based on the Enquiry Report dated 03.02.2025
and the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by respondent
No.2, the petitioner was relieved from service. It is under
these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Petitioner has been appointed to the post of
Barefoot Technician in respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat
vide Annexure-A dated 28.11.2022. Section 112 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
brevity, 'the Act'] provides for staffing pattern and
schedule of employees of the Gram Panchayat. A reading
of the said provision would go to show that Gram
Panchayat can appoint its staff subject to approval of the
Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishat, except
appointment of Panchayat Development Officer, Secretary
and Accounts Assistant. Section 113 of the said Act
provides for appointment and control of employees.
Section 113 of the Act reads as follows:
"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 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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
(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
passed by the Grama Panchayat under sub-section
(3) to the Chief Executive Officer.
(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."
6. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law
it is apparent that the Gram Panchayat is the authority
who could have taken action against the petitioner for
removing him from service. As against the order of
removal or dismissal of an employee passed by the Gram
Panchayat, an appeal is provided under sub-section (4) of
Section 113 of the Act to respondent No.3 herein.
Therefore, respondent No.3 is the appellate authority as
against the order of dismissal of service passed by the
Gram Panchayat in exercise of its power under sub-section
(3) of Section 113 of the Act.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
7. In the present case, respondent No.3 has held
an enquiry against the petitioner and based on his Enquiry
Report, respondent No.2 has passed an order at
Annexure-M dated 19.02.2025, to relieve the petitioner
from his service. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the impugned enquiry report as well as the
communications at Annexures-M, M1 and N based on the
Enquiry Report relieving the petitioner from service cannot
be sustained. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Enquiry Report at Annexure-
L dated 03.02.2025 passed by respondent
No.3 and also the impugned
communications based on the said Enquiry
Report, at Annexures-M, M1 and N wherein
direction is issued to relieve the petitioner
from service are quashed.
(iii) However, this order will not come in the
way of the competent authority to take
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2250
HC-KAR
appropriate action against the petitioner
based on the complaint of respondent No.5
or any other complaint.
(iv) It is needless to state that respondents
shall reinstate the petitioner for service
with all consequential benefits including
payment of back wages.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
Ct:pk
