IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.2597 OF 2012(S-RES) BETWEEN SRI SHEKARA POOJARI SON OF DUGGAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT GANAPA GUTHHU MUDRADI VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 145 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MUDRADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MUDRADI 576 145 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT -576 145 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SRI MANJUNATHA POOJARI PRESIDENT MUDRADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MUDRADI -576 145 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 145 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 145 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 AND R-3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.5255 OF 2008(S-RES) DATED 05.01.2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5255 of 2008, the petitioner-employee has preferred this appeal.
2. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are :
The petitioner was appointed as an Attender- cum-Bill Collector on temporary basis subject to certain conditions. Respondent issued a show cause notice on 18.07.2003 stating that the petitioner had misbehaved and insulted members and secretary of panchayath, obtained loan from bank by submitting false affidavit and running an auto rickshaw during office hours and directed to submit reply. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 4.8.2003. The Respondent being not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, passed an order dated 14.08.2013 for suspension. Accordingly, the petitioner was kept under suspension. Articles of Charges were issued to him. Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. Inquiry Committee was constituted headed by one Manjunatha Poojary by the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee after holding due Inquiry submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority based on the report of the Inquiry Committee ordered for dismissal from service. The petitioner questioned the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the findings given by the Inquiry Committee and action taken by the Disciplinary Authority upheld the order of dismissal. The petitioner questioning the order of punishment, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, filed W.P.No.5255 of 2008 before this Court.
The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record rejected the writ petition vide order dated 5.1.2012. The petitioner questioning the said order has filed this writ appeal.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsels on both sides.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Attender/Bill collector on temporary basis on certain terms and conditions. As per condition No.4 of the appointment order dated 20.9.1987 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner can be terminated from service any time without giving prior intimation. The respondent-Grama Panchayat has terminated the petitioner on the ground that he is guilty of charges levelled against him. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the inquiry proceedings as also by the disciplinary authority before passing an order of dismissal. There was no necessity for the respondent to give reasons for termination since as per condition No.4 of the appointment order, the petitioner is a temporary employee.
5. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that he has sworn a false affidavit stating that he is unemployed and his annual income is Rs.9,800/- and the source of income is stated as ‘coolie’. Statement made by the petitioner in affidavit dated 22.2.2002 is false as he was an employee of Panchayat as on the date of swearing the affidavit. But he has stated in the affidavit as ‘unemployed’. Thus, he has sworn a false affidavit. If a person swears a false affidavit, it is perjury being hit by Section 165 of IPC. The petitioner has committed an offence of guilt of perjury. Action of the petitioner in swearing a false affidavit is considered as a serious offence for which the respondent has not initiated any criminal action against the petitioner. The next charge is that during office hours, the petitioner was running a autorickshaw for his personal gain instead of discharging his duties i.e. collection of property tax. He was negligent in discharging his duty. That the duty cast upon a Bill Collector is to collect tax. If the Bill Collector does not collect tax, then the Authority cannot develop the village and the development work will come to a stand still.
6. Further, the petitioner has obtained a job by producing a fake SSLC marks card. On investigation, it was discovered that he has not passed SSLC. The petitioner has obtained a job by playing fraud on the respondent. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner goes to show that he has obtained a job by producing a fake certificate, that he has sworn a false affidavit and was running an autorickshaw during office hours. Thus he is negligent in discharging his duties.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that the complainant and the President of the Inquiry Committee is one and the same. That, in the earlier Inquiry committee, the President i.e. Manjunatha Poojary was cited as a witness and he was appointed as a President of the Inquiry Committee. Thus the Inquiry proceedings initiated stood vitiated. In support of his contention the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MOHD. YUNUS KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 539 wherein it is held in paragraph 28 as follows :
“28. xxx. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. xxxx.”
8. That, in the above referred case, Inquiry was initiated against the appellant therein by the Commandant for disobedience of the order of the Commandant himself and he has then held an inquiry and passed the order of punishment. But in the present case, the President of the inquiry committee was one Manjunath Prasad and he was cited as a witness. Later, on the objection raised by the petitioner, a separate committee was formed appointing another person as the President of the committee. Thereafter, when the said President was transferred, one Sri Praveen of Taluk Panchayath, Karkala was appointed as the President of the Committee. Inquiry Committee headed by Sri.Praveen has submitted a report and thereafter, the President of the Panchayath has taken a decision to dismiss the petitioner from service based on the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee.
9. The inquiry initiated by the Committee is different and the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority is different. Hence the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. For the above said reason, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand.
10. The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record, i.e. the respondent-Grama Panchayath after considering that the petitioner has procured the job by producing fake certificate and also swearing a false affidavit was running an autorickshaw during office hours has passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, has rightly rejected the petition.
11. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5255 of 2008.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rs