IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.50557/2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.B.M.Dyavappa, S/o B.N.Muniyappa, Aged about 35 years, Bill Collector, J.Venkatapur Grama Panchayathi, Shidlagahta Taluk-562105 Permanent Address: Sri.B.M.Dyavappa, S/o B.N.Muniyappa, Baluvanahalli,Venkatapura, Chikkaballapur, Karnataka-562105 Present Address:
Sri.B.M.Dyavappa, S/o B.N.Muniyappa, J.Venkatapur Grama Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlagahta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District-562105. ... Petitioner (By Shri.C.Shankar Reddy, Adv.) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department and Panchayath Raj Department, 3rd Gate, 3rd Floor, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, New District Complex, Sidlaghatta Road, Chikkaballapur-562101 3. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District-562105.
4. The Panchayath Development Officer, J.Venkatapur Grama Panchayathi, Shidlagahta Taluk Chikkaballapur District-562105 …Respondents (By Shri.Venkatesh M. Dodderi, AGA FOR R-1) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of India, praying to quash the order dated 23.6.2017 issued by respondent No.2, which is produced and marked as Annexure-A to the above Writ Petition pertaining to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner, Sri.B.M.Dyavappa has filed this petition challenging the suspension order dated 23.6.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Chikkaballapur.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioner has misused Rs.1,84,750/- during the period 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 being the funds belonging to the J.Venkatapura Grama Panchayath. Although he had collected the tax from the people he had failed to deposit the said amount with the Gram Panchayath. On 22.6.2017, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.32,000/- with the Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank in favour of J.Venkatapura Gram Panchyath. However, the said deposit was strictly under protest. Similarly on 23.6.2016, the petitioner again deposited Rs.2,750/-, under protest, with the said Bank in favour of the said Gram Panchayath. Similarly, two months later on 22.8.2017, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, again under protest, with the said Bank. However, by order dated 23.6.2017, the petitioner has been suspended by the Gram Panchayath. Hence the petition before this Court.
3. Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that despite the fact that the petitioner has deposited Rs.1,84,750/- in favour of the Gram Panchayath, even prior to passing of the suspension order, the suspension order has been passed on the ground that the amount has not been deposited so far by the petitioner. Therefore, the basis for passing of the said order is misplaced. Hence, the suspension order should be interfered with by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the impugned order.
5. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the impugned order is based not only on the fact that the petitioner has failed to deposit the said amount, but more so it is based on the fact that the petitioner is facing a criminal trial.
6. Even if the petitioner has deposited the amount as mentioned above, it does not absolve him of the fact that he had failed to deposit the amount when the tax was collected from the concerned persons. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in claiming that the petitioner should not have been suspended by the respondent.
7. The reputation of the Gram Panchayath has to be maintained as pristine. Therefore it is imperative that the employees of the Gram Panchayath should be above suspicion. However, as there is an allegation against the petitioner of embezzlement, for which he is already facing a criminal trial, and for which a disciplinary enquiry is contemplated, the action of the respondent in suspending the petitioner is legal, valid and just. Therefore this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby dismissed.
8. However, it is clarified that any observation made by this Court, herein above, should not adversely effect the interest of the petitioner in case he were to be subjected to a disciplinary enquiry, and in the criminal trial which is pending against him. This Court expects the respondent to be fair, just and reasonable with the petitioner while conducting the contemplated departmental enquiry.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/* ct-hr