Writ Petition No. 8572 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8572 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATESHAPPA. A S/O SRI. ANAJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR/DATA COMPUTER CHANNASANDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563157 (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101. 3. THE CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, CHANNASANDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563157. 4. THE SECRETARY, CHANNASANDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563157. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in H Rajappa and others vs. Haronahalli Grama Panchayath and Others - ILR 2004 KAR 1443. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner was based on certain allegations made by the residents of the Panchayath. The petitioner had denied the allegation that he had issued fraudulent receipts for having collected tax from the residents of the Panchayath. Therefore, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 there is no doubt that the termination of the petitioner was not a termination simpliciter but was stigmatic. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no person holding a civil post can be terminated without following the procedure as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner was not holding a civil post, nonetheless, whenever an employee is sought to be removed on the basis of allegation which impinges on his integrity or devotion to work, a semblance of an enquiry is mandatory, as such termination would affect the future employment of such person. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Grama Panchayath to put the petitioner on notice of the allegations against him, furnish articles of charge alongwith the documents in support of the charge and the particulars of the witnesses who would be examined at the enquiry, appoint an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry and place the report of the enquiry before the Panchayath for appropriate action. Since the said procedure is not followed in the instant case and the petitioner is terminated out rightly, it is appropriate that the said order is set aside and to direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 8. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner is quashed. It is open for the disciplinary authority under 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, to initiate suitable disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. However, it is open for the respondents to consider suspending the petitioner, but it shall be in accordance with law. 9. This writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. BKN Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
Arguments
(BY SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4; SRI. VENKATESHA T.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.3.2025 BEARING NO.GRA PAM/2/2024-25 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D; PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND AFFECTING THE VALID RIGHTS OF ARTICLE 14, 16(1) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order bearing No.Gra Pam/2/2024-25, dated 15.03.2025, passed by the respondent No.3, by which he was terminated. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service as a Data Entry Operator/Bill Collector. 2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as a Data Entry Operator/Bill Collector, there was a complaint against him about misappropriation in the Panchayath by the members of the general public who alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the property tax collected from them by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 issuing bogus receipts. Based on the complaints, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2025, calling upon him to submit his reply. He contends that he submitted his reply on 06.03.2025 and denied the allegations made against him. Inspite of the reply, he was terminated from service in terms of the impugned order dated 15.03.2025. The petitioner contends that such termination being stigmatic, ought to have been preceded by an enquiry. He contends that his appointment was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath on 28.09.2015 and was thus a regular employee entitled to protection against arbitrary termination. He contends that even in respect of temporary employees, if the termination is based on an allegation which is stigmatic, such an employee cannot be dismissed or terminated without conducting a formal enquiry. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of termination and has also sought for a direction to reinstate him into service. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, who contend that the petitioner was not a regular employee and that the petitioner was notified about the allegations made against him by the general public and after - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 considering his reply, the impugned order was passed. He therefore contends that there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 4. The respondent No.3 also opposed this writ petition by filing an elaborate statement of objections, inter alia contending that several complaints were received against the petitioner from the general public and that the District Project Manager and Assistant Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar visited Channasandra Grama Panchayath on 20.02.2025 for verification of truth from the petitioner. However, on the said day, the petitioner had marked his e-attendance and had gone for tax collection and later left to Bagepalli to attend the final rites of his relative. It is contended that the District Project Manager and Assistant Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar, who conducted the inspection in the presence of Panchayath Development Officer (henceforth referred to as ‘PDO’ for short) and other officials, found that unauthorized receipts were generated and issued to the public and the same was reported to the Deputy Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar. It is contended that the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath Kolar, vide communication dated 23.02.2025, directed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath Kolar and PDO of Channasandra Grama Panchayath to take action against the petitioner as per Section 62(D) and 113 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2025. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice denying the allegations and claimed that he was not involved in any manner whatsoever in generating the unauthorized receipts. Later, the members of Channasandra Grama Panchayath conducted an emergency meeting on 14.03.2025, which was attended by 17 members out of 19 members. Out of the 17 members who attended, 10 members suggested terminating the petitioner from service, while 7 members suggested to suspend the petitioner. In view of the resolution of the panchayath, the president and PDO of Channasandra Grama Panchayath dismissed the petitioner from service. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is terminated from service after due enquiry as per the provisions of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, which is in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the Panchayath had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17166 WP No. 8572 of 2025 received various complaints that the petitioner, as a Bill Collector, had issued bogus/unauthorized receipts for property tax collected. He contends that on verification of the receipts and comparing them with the office records, it was found that they were all fabricated and bogus. Therefore, he contends that the concerned authority had taken suitable action against the petitioner by inspecting his office and also after consulting the Zilla Panchayath. He therefore contends that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of a