Termination based on integrity allegations requires due process, including a formal enquiry, to safeguard employee rights.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order bearing No.Gra Pam/2/2024-25, dated 15.03.2025, passed by the respondent No.3, by which he was terminated. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service as a Data Entry Operator/Bill Collector.

2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as a Data Entry Operator/Bill Collector, there was a complaint against him about misappropriation in the Panchayath by the members of the general public who alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the property tax collected from them by issuing bogus receipts. Based on the complaints, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2025, calling upon him to submit his reply. He contends that he submitted his reply on 06.03.2025 and denied the allegations made against him. Inspite of the reply, he was terminated from service in terms of the impugned order dated 15.03.2025. The petitioner contends that such termination being stigmatic, ought to have been preceded by an enquiry. He contends that his appointment was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath on 28.09.2015 and was thus a regular employee entitled to protection against arbitrary termination. He contends that even in respect of temporary employees, if the termination is based on an allegation which is stigmatic, such an employee cannot be dismissed or terminated without conducting a formal enquiry. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of termination and has also sought for a direction to reinstate him into service.

3. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, who contend that the petitioner was not a regular employee and that the petitioner was notified about the allegations made against him by the general public and after considering his reply, the impugned order was passed. He therefore contends that there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

4. The respondent No.3 also opposed this writ petition by filing an elaborate statement of objections, inter alia contending that several complaints were received against the petitioner from the general public and that the District Project Manager and Assistant Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar visited Channasandra Grama Panchayath on 20.02.2025 for verification of truth from the petitioner. However, on the said day, the petitioner had marked his e-attendance and had gone for tax collection and later left to Bagepalli to attend the final rites of his relative. It is contended that the District Project Manager and Assistant Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar, who conducted the inspection in the presence of Panchayath Development Officer (henceforth referred to as ‘PDO’ for short) and other officials, found that unauthorized receipts were generated and issued to the public and the same was reported to the Deputy Secretary of Zilla Panchayath Kolar. It is contended that the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath Kolar, vide communication dated 23.02.2025, directed the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath Kolar and PDO of Channasandra Grama Panchayath to take action against the petitioner as per Section 62(D) and 113 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 . Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2025. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice denying the allegations and claimed that he was not involved in any manner whatsoever in generating the unauthorized receipts. Later, the members of Channasandra Grama Panchayath conducted an em