IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.2687 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. T.N. KOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH T.N. KOTE, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BYLAPPA.
(BY SRI: RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH CHALLAKERE TALUK CHALLAKERE DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 522.
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T.N. KOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
5. MISS. R. ANURADHA DAUGHTER OF LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF THIMMANAYAKANA KOTE POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1; SRI: S.K. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.53551 OF 2017, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.53551 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, in setting aside the impugned resolution dated 24.03.2017 while granting liberty to the concerned respondent to proceed in accordance with law, respondent No.4 therein has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge even after holding that the provisions of appeal is provided, has interfered with the order of dismissal from service and the same is erroneous. That once the person is dismissed, he is entitled to file an appeal and hence, no order could be passed by the writ Court.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned Counsel for respondent No.5. He contends that respondent No.5 was a permanent employee of the appellant. Therefore, without holding an enquiry, she could not be terminated from the service.
4. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge was of the view that even though a statutory remedy under Section 113(4) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 is provided, the order of dismissal from service is wholly without jurisdiction. That a permanent employee cannot be terminated in the manner that has been done. Therefore, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to entertain its writ jurisdiction. We find no error in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in issuing the writ of certiorari. So far as the status of the employee is concerned, Annexure-A would primarily indicate that she has been appointed in the manner known to law and that she is a permanent employee.
5. Be that as it may, the question of holding an enquiry is kept open which the appellant proposes to hold. Hence, we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-