( 1 ) THE first petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector in the first respondent-Gram Panchayat on 25. 8. 2001. He contends that his appointment was also approved by the Zilla Panchayat by an order dated 10. 3. 2004 as per Annexure-A. Second petitioner was appointed as a peon in the first respondent-Gram Panchayat long back and he claims that he has put in 21 years of service as a peon. Both of them belong to Scheduled Caste Community. Their case is that on 13. 9. 2004, the Secretary of the first respondent Gram Panchayat instructed the first petitioner to disburse 350 kgs. of rice to a Contractor who has done contract work for the Panchayat. The said work was executed under "kooligage Kalu Yojane" and therefore the rice has to be disbursed to the Contractor, and as per the instructions rice was disbursed. The receipt of the rice was also duly acknowledged by the Contractor. Thereafter, the Secretary issued show cause notices calling for an explanation from the petitioners giving three days time. Annexures, B and C are the said show cause notices. Though the petitioners wanted to give reply, the Secretary did not receive the same. The Secretary did not attend the office properly for 21 or 3 days only to avoid receiving any reply by the petitioners to the show cause notices. However, the petitioners gave reply as per Annexure-D and E. Thereafter, an emergency meeting of Panchayat was called on 28. 9. 2004 in which a resolution was passed terminating the petitioners and appointing respondents 4 and 5 as a Bill Collector and a Peon. A copy of the said resolution is produced as per Annexure-F. Consequent to the said resolution, memos were issued as per Annexure-G and H to the petitioners informing them that they have been dismissed from service. Challenging the aforesaid termination, the petitioners have preferred these Writ Petitions contending that the termination is arbitrary, passed with mala fide intention and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the same is liable to be quashed and they should be reinstated into service and appointment of respondents 4 and 5 in their place has to be set aside.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of I. V. SURESHA vs. ZILLA PANCHAYAT, HASSAN and OTHERS, reported in 2004 (1) KCCR 132, contends that the Zilla Panchayat is the appointing authority and the Gram Panchayat being only a recommending body, has no authority or power as such to terminate the services of petitioners. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is unsustainable in law in view of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules. As the impugned order and the resolution are passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, even if an alternative remedy is provided under the Act, it is a fit case for interference by this Court and to quash the same.

( 3 ) CHAPTER V of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'act') deals with staff of Gram Panchayats and this Chapter contains three sections. Sections 111, 112 and 113. Between these Sections, we have to find out who are the employees of Gram Panchayats, who appoints them, how they are appointed, who is the Disciplinary Authority and who is competent to pass orders and what are the remedies against those orders passed.

( 4 ) SECTION 111 of the Act provides that every - Gram Panchayat shall have a whole time Secretary who shall be an officer of the Government and shall draw his salary and allowance from the fund of the Gram Panchayat, after the same is credited to the Gram Panchayat fund by the Government. The Secretary shall perform all the duties and exercise all the powers imposed or conferred upon him by or under this Act or any Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder. Sub-section (3) of Section III of the Act sets out the functions to be performed by such Secretary. Therefore, it is clear that the Secretary is an officer