IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 54040 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT JAYAMMA T, W/O SIDDAMALLAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, WAS SERVING AS CLERK CUM COMPUTER OPERATOR AT KACHIGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-571187 AND ALSO NOW R/A SMT JAWYAMMA T, W/O SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA, R/O DEVANOOR ROAD, BEHIND DEGREE COLLEGE, BANAWARA, BANAWARA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-571187.
(BY SRI. SAGAR B B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATEESH M DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HASSAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KACHIGHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.
4. KACHIGHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, KACHIGHATTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.
5. SRI SADASHIVA B S, S/O SIDDAPPA BANDEKERE, NOW WORKING AS CLERK CUM DATE ENTRY OPERATOR, KACHIGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.
(BY SRI. M C NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 &3;
SRI. J N NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner joined temporary services of the 4th respondent-Panchayat with effect from 25.11.2008 as Computer Operator. Later vide resolution dated 22.12.2014 she was re-designated as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator which has been approved by the Zilla Panchayat vide Order dated 16.01.2015.
2. The services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with by the respondent-Panchayat vide letter dated 28.07.2017 at Annexure-F on the unanimous resolution of all its members on the ground that despite warning she did not change her attitude towards work which allegedly came in the way of discharge of public duties. Petitioner’s appeal also ended in vain. Aggrieved thereby she has been complaining to the writ court.
2. After service of notice, the first respondent entered appearance through the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Smt.Nagashree; respondents 2 & 3 are represented by Sri A.Nagarajappa, and respondents 4 & 5 have chosen to remain unrepresented despite service of notice.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the petitioner came to be selected and appointed as a Computer Operator with effect from 25.11.2008; her position was re-designated as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator with effect from 16.01.2015; thus the petitioner has put in a long service is not in dispute;
(b) although the Panchayat has power to remove its employees from service u/s.113 of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the exercise of power is conditioned inter alia by the rule o audi alterem partem; there is absolutely no material on record to show that petitioner was ever given an opportunity of hearing before taking the stringent action of her discharge from service; thus the action is bad for violation of principles of natural justice;
(c) even the Appellate Authority namely the Zilla Panchayat has proceeded on a wrong assumption that earlier warning notices about her conduct would constitute an opportunity of hearing; there is thorough mis-direction in law inasmuch as a notice of warning to the employee to improve his quality and standard of work cannot be construed as a notice which should precede his termination from service; when a means of livelihood is at stake, the principles of natural justice have to be followed strictly & meaningfully; this having not been done, the impugned orders are unsustainable.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned orders are set at naught;
petitioner shall be taken back to duty forthwith sans backwages, but with continuity of service.
Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if they so chooses in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/