Writ Petition No. 21727 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.21727 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNA L.H., S/O. SRI. HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. LAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KABBALIGERE POST, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130 …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1; SMT. SHYAMALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; R2 IS SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-4 DATED 25.08.2022 AND 01.10.2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND O, DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FORM THE SERVICES 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 S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure-J) and order dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure-O), wherein the petitioner is terminated from services as Data Entry Operator (DEO) from the 3rd respondent-Panchayath. 2. Heard Sri. Murthy.D.L., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Prathibha.R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 as well as Smt. Shyamala, learned counsel for Sri. A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Executive Assistant as per Annexure-B dated 12.02.2009 by respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayath. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator (DEO) by 4th respondent-Panchayath and the said appointment was approved by respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayath under Annexure-C dated 16.01.2015. Learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 counsel would further submit that the petitioner was issued with show-cause notice at Annexures-E, F and G dated 15.06.2022, 20.06.2022 and 28.06.2022 calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be initiated for remaining unauthorizedly absent from 13.06.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply at Annexure-E1 dated 18.06.2022, Annexure-F1 dated 24.06.2022 and Annexure-G1 dated 01.07.2022 stating that he was unwell and as such he could not attend to his duties enclosing Medical Certificate dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure-D). It is further submitted that without conducting any enquiry, impugned orders are passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and further he submits that remaining unauthorized absence for three days, the punishment of termination is harsh and disproportionate. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that the petitioner remained absent for more than one month as indicated in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 Annexure-J. As such, respondent Nos.3 and 4 having no other option terminated the services of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of showing cause. Thus, learned counsel defends action of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
Decision
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned orders under challenge requires interference as the same is without conducting any enquiry and punishment imposed for the allegation contained in the show-cause notice is disproportionate to the allegations. 6. The petitioner's appointment as DEO was approved by respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayath under Annexure-C dated 16.01.2015. The show-cause notice at Annexure-E indicates that the petitioner was absent from 07.06.2022 to 15.06.2022. In terms of Annexure-F dated 20.06.2022, it is alleged that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 13.06.2022 till the show-cause notice i.e., 20.06.2022. As per Annexure-G, show-cause notice dated 28.06.2022, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 13.06.2022 till the date of show- cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply as stated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 above stating that he was unwell and he has also not been paid salary. Impugned orders at Annexure-J dated 25.08.2022 as well as Annexure-O, Official Memorandum dated 01.10.2022 would indicate that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 13.06.2022 to 15.07.2022. But the show-cause notice indicates unauthorized absence from 13.06.2022 to 28.06.2022. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner other than issuing show-cause notice to him. When the petitioner states that he had submitted reply through registered post, the respondents ought to have given the petitioner further opportunity to have his say in the matter. Moreover, punishment of termination for remaining absent as stated in the impugned orders would be harsh and it is disproportionate to the allegations. 7. Rule 8 of 2020 Rules requires initiation of disciplinary action against erring employees. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for conducting enquiry and thereafter the Grama Panchayat is empowered to impose any punishment. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2123 WP No. 21727 of 2022 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked since the date of his termination. Hence, he would not be entitled for any salary arrears on the principles of no work no pay. 8. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is allowed; impugned orders bearing a.UÁæ..¥ÀA/50/2022-23 dated 25.08.2022 and a.UÁæ..¥ÀA/66/2022-23 dated 01.10.2022 at Annexures-J and O are quashed; respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Data Entry Operator. The petitioner would not be entitled for any backwages. Time for compliance: Two months. Respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48