IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition No.33500/2017 (S-RES) Between :
Prashanth D. V., S/o. Veerabhadrappa G., Aged about 35 years, W/as. MIS Co-ordinator, MGNREGA, Taluk Panchayat, Jagalur, (Now illegally terminated from Service) R/at. Door No.921/31, K.H.B. Colony, Near New Bus Stand Road, Brindavan Road, Davangere-577002. …Petitioner (By Sri Harischandra M., Advocate) And :
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by Prl. Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Vikas Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Commissioner Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, 2nd Floor, 3rd Block, M. S. Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Shivamogga-577201, Shivamogga District.
4. The Proprietor B.K.R. Swamy Security Agencies, No.310, Pavilion Road, P. J. Extension, Davangere-577002. …Respondents (By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, HCGP for R-1 and R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 15.02.2017 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Davangere, Vide Annexure-Q as the said order is passed without Jurisdiction and opposed to the principles of natural justice and is also the rule of law and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Mr. Harischandra M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his prayer to Prayer-C, whereby the petitioner has requested for a direction from this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.2.2017.
2. Although this case has a checkered history, but bereft of unnecessary facts, the bare facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as “Management Information System (MIS) Coordinator“ on 14.8.2009, by the manpower agency, namely Sumeru Security Agencies. He was posted at the Zilla Panchayat, Davanagere. Subsequently, he was also selected on 1.9.2010 to the said post. However, by the order dated 12.6.2015, the petitioner’s services were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 8.6.2015. After some time, that is on 1.10.2016, the petitioner was re-appointed on the post of “MIS Coordinator”. However, without issuing a show cause notice, the petitioner’s services have been terminated suddenly by the order dated 15.2.2017. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the illegal termination, on 25.2.2017, he had filed a representation, bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 that he is saddled with family responsibilities, and that his termination is an illegal one. But, despite the lapse of five months, the said representation has not elicited any reaction from the respondent No.2. Hence, the limited prayer before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once a representation is submitted before the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is legally bound to consider, and decide the same. The petitioner continues to suffer due to the pendency of the representation. Therefore, necessary directions should be issued by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the State assures this Court that in case the directions are so issued by this Court, the petitioner’s representation shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of the petitioner appears, and places his case before the respondent No.2.
5. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, the respondent No.2, on 8th of August 2017. The learned Commissioner is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to decide his representation dated 25.2.2017, within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-