IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.28134/2015 C/W WRIT PETITION No.28136/2015(S-DIS) IN WP No.28134/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI H. S. GNANESH S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BILL COLLECTOR DODDATHOGURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEGUL HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK R/AT NO.974, MARUTHI BADAVANE WEAVERS COLONY, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560083.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARJUN, A.C., ADVOCATE) IN WP No.28136/2015 BETWEEN:
SMT. AMARAVATHI, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BILL COLLECTOR DODDATHOGURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEGUL HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK R/AT NO.228, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, BEHIND NEW ORIGINAL SCHOOL, DODDATHOGURU, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE 560100.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARJUN, A.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
2 . THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, TALUK PANCHAYATH, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 100.
3 . PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560 100.
…RESPONDENTS (COMMON IN BOTH PETITIONS) (BY SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) **** WRIT PETITION No.28134/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 25.6.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW HIM TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES AS BILL COLLECTOR, IN THIRD RESPONDENT – GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
WRIT PETITION No.28136/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 25.6.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW HER TO DISCHARGE HER DUTIES AS BILL COLLECTOR, IN THE THIRD RESPONDENT – GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HERING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
O R D E R The petitioner – Sri H.S. Gnanesh, who is the Bill Collector working under the 3rd respondent – Grama Panchayath has sought for the following reliefs in W.P. No.28134/2015 :
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other writ by quashing the impugned letter dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-L and the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-M and direct the respondents to allow him to discharge his duties as Bill Collector, in third respondent – Grama Panchayath, with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner – Smt. Amaravathi, who is the Bill Collector working under the 3rd respondent – Grama Panchayath has sought for the following reliefs in W.P. No.28136/2015 :
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other writ by quashing the impugned letter dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-H and the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-J and direct the respondents to allow her to discharge her duties as Bill Collector, in the third respondent – Grama Panchayath, with all consequential benefits.
3. It is the case of the petitioners in these writ petitions that they were working as Bill Collectors in the 3rd respondent – Grama Panchayath and while working as such, they were suspended by the order dated 7.2.2011 in respect of the alleged trap by the Lokayukta Police. The petitioner – Amaravathi who was newly promoted to the post of Bill Collector, requested the petitioner – H.S. Gnanesh to calculate tax amount payable by one Sridhar Thimme Gowda, the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner - Gnanesh calculated the tax payable by the complainant for the period from 2005 to 2011 at Rs.12,414/- and wrote the same on the backside on the photo copy of the sale deed and handed over to the petitioner – Amaravathi and there was no meeting with the complainant at all with respect to payment of tax. The Lokayukta on interrogation with the petitioners sought their reply to initiate departmental enquiry.
4. The petitioners replied to the same stating that the allegations are false and requested not to recommend the competent authority to initiate departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent wrote a letter to the Addl. Inspector General of Police, Lokayukta requesting clarification regarding further course of action since as per the charge sheet filed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the petitioner – Gnanesh is a witness and the petitioner – Amaravathi is the accused. Thereafter, the petitioners were reinstated to the post of Bill Collectors. Subsequently as per the direction issued by the State Government by the impugned communication dated 25.6.2015, the respondent No.3 proceeded to dismiss both the writ petitioners from service by the impugned order dated 25.6.2015. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. When these matters came up before this Court on 22.10.2019, none appeared for Respondent No.3 and since the matter is of the year 2015, this Court directed the 3rd respondent - Panchayath Development Officer to be present before the Court along with the original records on the next date of hearing to know whether the petitioners have been served with the notice of enquiry before passing the order of dismissal.
6. Today, Sri R. Umesh, Respondent No.2 – Executive Officer is present before the Court along with the records.
7. Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, on instructions submits that the 3rd respondent proceeded to dismiss both the petitioners in view of the direction issued by the State Government by communication dated 25.6.2015 (Annexure-L in W.P. No.28134/2015 and Annexure-H in W.P. No.28136/2015). The said submission is placed on record.
8. Sri H.R. Showri, learned Government Pleader submits that in the light of the report submitted by the Lokayukta under the provisions of Section-12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Government is justified in directing the 3rd respondent - Panchayath to terminate the petitioners from service.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact the petitioners – Gnanesh and Amaravathi were discharging their duties as regular employees/Bill Collectors in the 3rd respondent – Panchayath. On the report submitted by the Lokayukta under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,1984 it is the duty of the competent authority under sub-section(4) to examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. On receipt of the report, the competent authority ought to have proceeded with the enquiry as contemplated in accordance with law. In the present case, the State Government by the impugned communication dated 25.6.2015 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Bangalore Urban Zilla Panchayath, Bangalore to terminate both the petitioners immediately without examining the material on record and without application of mind as to whether the State Government can direct the 3rd respondent to terminate the petitioners who were regular employees without holding enquiry.
10. The Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayath approved the appointment of the petitioners exercising the powers under the provisions of Sections 112 and 113 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act on 27.2.2008 and the said approval has reached finality. Therefore, the 3rd respondent – Appointing Authority has to apply his mind independently and cannot ignore the procedure as contemplated before dismissal. In the present case, the 3rd respondent proceeded to dismiss the petitioners mainly on the basis of the direction issued by the State Government without holding any enquiry and without giving notice as contemplated in accordance with law. Even if the State Government directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayath to dismiss the petitioners, it is the duty and obligation on the part of the appointing authority to apply his mind and to conduct preliminary enquiry by providing opportunity and satisfy himself whether the petitioners are involved in the alleged charge. Without holding any enquiry and without giving sufficient opportunity, the impugned letter dated 25.6.2015 issued by the State Government and the impugned order of dismissal dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent – Grama Panchayath are in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. On that ground alone, the impugned direction issued by the State Government and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that on the basis of the direction issued by the State Government, the 3rd respondent has dismissed the petitioners from service, cannot be accepted. It is in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned letter dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-L in Writ Petition No.28134/2015 and Annexure-H in Writ Petition No.28136/2015) and the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-M in W.P. No.28134/2015 and Annexure-J in W.P. No.28136/2015) are hereby quashed.
12. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the 3rd respondent to proceed against the petitioners, if so desires, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-