Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri P.Manjunath S/o Sri Palanna - Appellant
Vs.
The Secretary Government Of Karnataka, Rural Development And Panchyathraj, M.S.Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No.55978 of 2016 (S – RES)
Decided On : 13-01-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 and 12 - Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 113(3) - Permanent employee of the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayath - Appointment and control of employees - Termination the services - Allegations, the fourth respondent -Gram Panchayath had resolved to terminate services of the petitioner pursuant to which, the second respondent Chief Executive Officer issued an order directing the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath to dismiss petitioner from service - It is this order that is called in question in this petition - petitioner joined service of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath as a Computer Operator and petitioner was fully qualified to hold post - After about 9 years of the petitioner functioning as Computer Operator in the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayath, second respondent -Chief Executive officer approved the appointment of the petitioner as a computer Operator in the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath as is required under law - Petitioner is a permanent employee of the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayath - Petitioner was appointed and his appointment was approved in accordance with law which makes him a permanent employee of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath. The Gram Panchayath appears to have resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service on account of certain allegations – complaints received by the residents of the Gram Panchayath against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that 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 – Held, 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
Petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the second respondent whereby the second respondent directs the Gram Panchyath to dismiss the petitioner from service on certain allegations and consequently, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath on 13.11.2016 as a Computer Operator and the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post. After about 9 years of the petitioner functioning as Computer Operator in the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayath, the second respondent -Chief Executive officer approved the appointment of the petitioner as a computer Operator in the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath as is required under law. Thus, the petitioner is a permanent employee of the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayath.
3. It transpires that on certain allegations, the fourth respondent -Gram Panchayath had resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner on 01.09.2016 pursuant to which, the second respondent Chief Executive Officer issued an order on 08.06.2016 directing the fourth respondent Gram Panchayath to dismiss the petitioner from service. It is this order that is called in question in this petition.
4. Heard Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Parthasarathi.M.S., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.N.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
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 Panchayath. The Gram Panchayath appears to have resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service on account of certain allegations – complaints received by the residents of the Gram Panchayath 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 Panchayath 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 Panchayath and no fault can be found with the resolution of the Gram Panchayath 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 Panchayath 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.
8. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.48068/2018 disposed on 21.10.2020, has held 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 [x
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
