IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6858 OF 2014 (S-DIS) BETWEEN:
SMT B C PAVITHRA KUMARI, W/O SRI SHASHIDHAR K KOTYAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ACCOUNTANT CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, BELUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (NOW ILLEGALLY REMOVED FROM SERVICE) SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT & RESIDING AT DODDAMADTHE VILLAGE, HANCODE POST, SOMAVARPET TALUK, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHEESHA K N, M/S SUBBA RAO & COMPANY) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KODAGU DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 17.02.2014 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SOMAVARPET TALUK, SOMAVARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
4. BELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BALAGUNDI POST, SOMAVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
5. MS NETHRAVATHI, D/O SRI GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUSUBOOR VILLAGE, KUSUBOOR POST, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M N MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. B HONNALINEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
V.C.O. DATED 17.02.2014 R1 & R2 ARE STRUCK OFF) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNX-E AND A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SOMAVARPET, VIDE ANNX-G AS THE SAID ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IN UTTER VIOLATION SEC. 113(3) OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT & OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator who was appointed to the said post vide order dated 17.04.2007, is grieving before this Court that the impugned order removing her from service apart from being non est is bad in law.
2. After service of notice, the answering respondent Nos. 3 & 4 having entered appearance through their counsel, oppose the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that relief needs to be granted to the poor petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the impugned order of termination is by the Executive Officer of the third respondent-Taluka Panchayath when Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, provides for action of the kind being taken only by the Grama Panchayath; the impugned order is not a fall out action of Gram Panchayat; thus, impugned order is without jurisdiction;
(b) the impugned termination order is bad in law inasmuch as, such an extreme penalty of dismissal from service could not have been made without following the principles of injustice and also the norms laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this court in H. RAJAPPA & ANOTHER Vs. HARONAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AND OTHERS, ILR 2005 KAR 1443; when God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam and even before punishing them for eating the forbidden fruit in Eden Garden, there is no reason why man should not follow the principles of injustice;
(c) the allegation against he petitioner is not very serious; what is alleged against her is that she had made a data entry as to a sum of Rs.12,500/- becoming payable to the beneficiary under Basava Housing Scheme; it is nobody’s case that she had either misappropriated this money or taken any commission from the beneficiary; that being the position, the impugned removal from service militates against the doctrine of proportionality;
(d) the impugned action of removal from service is otherwise also unjust, arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as, a reasonable option of other kinds of penalty have not been explored by the respondent – Taluka Panchayath; the fund that has been released in favour of the beneficiary allegedly because of the subject data entry at the most, could have been recovered from the petitioner as a measure of penalty; this having not been done, the dismissal from service being grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the allegation, thus shakes the conscience of the Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the of dismissal of petitioner from service having been set at naught, a direction issues to Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to reinstate her in service, with continuity of service and 50% of back wages.
Time for compliance is four weeks; delay shall cost the respondents Rs.2,500/- per month which shall be payable to the petitioner. It is open to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to recover the cost amount from the erring officials, in accordance with law;
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv