ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a resolution passed by the respondent dated 30.07.2022 and the letter bearing No. UÁæ¥ÀA¥À:PÀªÀ-1/2022-23 dated 01.08.2022, addressed by the respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to appoint him as a Bill Collector by implementing the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Zilla Panchayath, Hassan, in Appeal No.1/2021-22.

2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Attender at Maragondanahalli, Grama Panchayth, Holenarasipura Taluk. Later, in terms of a resolution dated 24.04.1997 of the said panchayath, he was appointed as a Bill Collector. The petitioner contends that from then on, he was been discharging duties without any blemish of whatsoever nature. His appointment was confirmed by respondent No.2 - Taluk Panchayath and he was appointed permanently on 25.01.2006. The petitioner contends that the respondent did not allow him to discharge his duty as a Bill Collector and was also not paying any salary from January 2013 on the ground that he had misappropriated the money collected. In that regard, he approached the Taluk Panchayath and Zilla Panchayath by filling representations. He claimed that he was prevented from collecting the property tax from the residents within the panchayath area and he realized later that it was collected by the respondent itself. In that regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2013. The petitioner thereafter, filed W.P No.18872/2014 seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to allow him to discharge his duty as a Bill Collector and to pay the salary. When W.P No.18872/2014 was set down for hearing, the respondent furnished a resolution dated 08/05/2006 by which the petitioner was removed from service. Therefore, this Court, in terms of an order dated 07.09.2021, disposed off the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the resolution dated 08.05.2006, before the appropriate Appellate Authority.

3. Consequent thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before Zilla Panchayath, in Appeal No.01/2021-22. The Zilla Panchayath, in terms of the order dated 11.07.2022, directed the respondent to take back the petitioner to service since the petitioner had by then deposited the alleged misappropriated amount. The petitioner then submitted a representation before the respondent to accept him back into the service. However, the respondent passed a resolution refusing to accept the services of the petitioner on 30.07.2022 and issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that the members of the respondents resolved not to accept the service of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Zilla Panchayath has to be complied with by the respondent and that it has no other option. He contends that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order of the Zilla Panchayth, it was bound to question the same.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the members of the respondent have unanimously resolved to not accept the service of the petitioner due to his past conduct. He submitted that though the petitioner had deposited the alleged misappropriated amount, it is likely that the respondent would relapse to his earlier acts, which is injurious to the respondent. He therefore, contended that it is not appropriate to issue any direction to the respondent to accept the services of the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the Zilla Panchayath had in terms of the order dated 11.07.2022, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to accept the services of the petitioner. The Zilla Panchayath, while passing the said order, had noted that the petitioner had deposited the alleged misappropriation amount. In that light, the respondent was bound to comply the order passed by Zilla panchayath and it