SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY B R vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3075

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2156 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY B.R, S/O SRI RANGAIAG, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC - PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MOTAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAGADI - TALUK, RAMANAGARA - DISTRICT RESIDING AT SRIPATHI HALLI, KALYA POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA – DISTRICT – 562 160.
2. SRI RAJU. M, S/O MUTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC - TECHNICAL ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MOTAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, Digitally signed MAGADI - TALUK, by RAMANAGARA - DISTRICT MARIGANGAIAH RESIDING AT HUNASANAHALLI, PREMAKUMARI CHANNAPATNA - TALUK, Location: HIGH RAMANAGARTA – DISTRICT – 562 160.
COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE OMBUDSMAN, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH BHAVANA, B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGARA - TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 159
3. THE KARNATAKA OMBUDSMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, PLOT NO. 1 TO 4, KSSIDC BUILDING, IT PARK, 5^TH FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU – 560 010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR – DISTRICT – 562 112.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. RAJIPAM/ OM/ UUKHAYO/ CR/ 30/ 2021- 22/1743 DTD. 21.07.2022 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE R-2 AND THE ORDER IN APPEAL CASE NO. O.ME.PRA.PRA/167/2022-23 PASSED AN ORDER ON 19.11.2024 VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY THE R-
3 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

Petitioner Advocates:PRAKASH M PATIL ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel Sri.Prakash M. Patil for petitioners and Learned Additional Government Advocate who has taken notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

Perused the writ petition papers.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are before this Court questioning the order of Ombudsmen – Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2022. Since the petitioners are before this Court challenging the order of Ombudsmen, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.

3. On the other hand, Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that Petitioners are Government servants and the order of the Ombudsmen would ultimately affect the service conditions of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners have to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative tribunals Act, 1985.

4. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is working as Panchayath Development Officer and the second petitioner is working as Technical Assistant and both of them belong to Panchayath Raj Department.

5. Since the petitioners are Government servants, they are provided with special forum for redressal of their grievance, established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 3(q) of the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 defines service matters which reads as follows:

3(q). “service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects—

(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;

(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;

(iii) leave of any kind;

(iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever.”

6. Under impugned order, the Ombudsmen at Annexure-E has recommended for recovery for a sum of Rs.87,922/- each from the petitioners. The appellate order confirms the said order passed by the Ombudsmen.

7. The above recovery order would definitely would affect the service condition of the petitioners. Normally, when a statute provides statutory remedy and special forum for redressal of their grievance, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not entertain the writ petition. In the instant case, since the petitioners are provided with special forum for redressal of their grievance, I decline to entertain the writ petition. 8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to redress their grievance.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document