Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttaswamy Gowda vs The President on 10 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.57783/2018 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
S/O PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HOTHANHALLI PURA VILLAGE
KUNDUR HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-57117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT
BYRAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-571117.
2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BYRAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-571117.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT-573165.
4. THE SECRETARY
BYRAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
BYRAPURA
ALUR TALUK-571117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARJUN R., ADV. FOR
SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE R1/BYRAPURA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH TO REAPPOINT/APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS
PER ANNEXURE-G DATED 11.09.2015.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash Annexure-K, order bearing No.f¥ÀAºÁ/D¹(12)C¦Ã®Ä- 01/2014-15 dated 06.09.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent-Zilla Panchayath and for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Byrapura Grama Panchayath to re-appoint the petitioner as per Annexure-G dated 11.09.2015.
2. Heard Smt. Vijaya M.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arjun R., learned counsel for Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as Waterman under 3 resolution dated 10.12.1997 of 1st respondent-Grama Panchayath. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the 3rd respondent-Zilla Panchayat under Official Memorandum (Annexure-B) dated 21.03.2012. Learned counsel would submit that subsequently under (Annexure-C) resolution dated 03.12.2012, the petitioner was kept under suspension on the allegation that complaints have been received against the petitioner stating that the petitioner instead of supplying drinking water to the villagers is utilizing the same for cultivation in his land. Subsequently by resolution (Annexure-D) dated 06.08.2013 the services of the petitioner was terminated. Against the resolution to terminate, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent by endorsement (Annexure-F) dated 21.08.2015 directed the 1st respondent to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel would invite attention to the resolution 4 (Annexure-G) dated 11.09.2015, wherein the Grama Panchayath resolved to re-appoint the petitioner as Waterman. But inspite of the resolution, the same was not given effect to. Hence the petitioner is said to have filed one more appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent in terms of (Annexure-K) dated 06.09.2018 rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Alur, has recommended for termination of the petitioner; alleging that the petitioner instead of providing drinking water to the villagers is utilizing the same for his personal use i.e., cultivation of his land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner is contrary to Section 113 of the Act and no enquiry is conducted before terminating the petitioner. Inspite of the appellate authority order, the petitioner was not reinstated and subsequently the 3rd respondent-Appellate Authority even without verifying as to whether enquiry was held before terminating the 5 petitioner or as to whether the respondent No.4/Grama Panchayath has followed the principles of natural justice before terminating the petitioner, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus it is submitted that action of the respondent in terminating the petitioner is wholly illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Section 113 of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that resolution to terminate is not an order of termination simplicitor, but it attaches stigma. When serious allegations are made, without enquiry no order of termination could be passed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents referring to the statement of objections submits that on the basis of the complaint received against the petitioner, that petitioner was utilizing water for his personal use, notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2005. The statement of objections also would allege that petitioner along with his children was damaging and breaking the valves connected to water 6 pipes of the villagers, to utilize the said water for his personal use. It is contended that since notice is issued there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is as to :-
"Whether the termination of the petitioner under resolution dated 06.08.2013 is legally sustainable ?"
Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reason:-
The petitioner was initially appointed under resolution dated 10.12.1997 by the 1st respondent-Grama Panchayath as Waterman. The appointment of the petitioner was approved as required under Section 113 of the Act by Official Memorandum (Annexure-B) dated 21.03.2012. Subsequently under resolution (Annexure-
C) dated 03.12.2012, the petitioner was kept under suspension and subsequently by resolution dated 7 06.08.2013, the petitioner was terminated from service alleging that Grama Panchayath had received complaint from the villagers alleging that petitioner was using the drinking water meant for villagers for personal use and was not providing the same to the villagers.
7. Sub Sections (2) (3) and (4) of Section 113 of the Act reads as follows :-
"113.Appointment and control of employees:
(1)........................................................... (2) The Secretary may, by order, fine or withhold, the increment of any employee appointed by the Grama Panchayat.
(3) The Grama Panchayat may reduce in
rank, remove or dismiss any employee
appointed by it.
(4) An appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Secretary under sub-section (2) to the Executive Officer and against an order passed by the Grama Panchayat under sub-section (3) to the Chief Executive Officer. (5)............................................................"8
Sub Section (3) empowers the Grama Panchayath to impose punishment of reduction in Rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it. In the instant case, an allegation of misuse of drinking water is alleged against the petitioner, apart from damaging the water pipes along with his children. It is not the case of the respondent-Grama Panchayath in their statement of objections as well as submission before the Court that enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before terminating the services of the petitioner as Waterman. No employee of the Grama Panchayath could be terminated attaching stigma. In the instant case, the allegation of misuse of drinking water and damage to the water pipe is alleged against the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted to prove the allegation. Without conducting enquiry on the allegation of misconduct the respondent could not have terminated the petitioner.
8. The appellate authority under impugned order dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure-K) failed to perform its duty as appellate authority. The appellate authority 9 failed to examine as to whether the termination of the petitioner is preceded by any enquiry or whether the 4th respondent followed the principles of natural justice before terminating the petitioner. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that the order of termination is without enquiry and is in violation of principles of natural justice, the resolution dated 06.08.2013 as well as the appellate authority order bearing No.GPAMHA/AASI(12)APPEAL-01/2014-15 dated 06.09.2018 are set aside.
9. Hence the following order :-
a. Resolution (Annexure-D) dated 06.08.2013 of the 4th respondent-Grama Panchayth as well as the Appellate Order (Annexure-K) bearing No. GPAMHA/AASI(12)APPEAL-01/2014-15 dated 06.09.2018 are quashed.
b. Respondent No.4 is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Waterman.
c. Since the petitioner has not worked during the period of dismissal, the petitioner would not be 10 entitled for backwages, but however he would be entitled for continuity of service.
d. It is open for the respondent-Grama
Panchayath to take action against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
With the above observation, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms