Karnataka High Court
Smt Yamuna T V vs The Mission Director on 15 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41116
WP No. 30228 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 30228 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT YAMUNA T V
W/O UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT AJJENAHALLI,
NEERAGUNDA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572227.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUNITHA K S 1. THE MISSION DIRECTOR
Location: SANJEEVINI K S R L P S
HIGH COURT NO 4, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
OF MY SUGAR BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
J C ROAD,
OPP: TO RAVEENDRA KALA KSHETHRA,
BANGALORE - 560002.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
AT TUMAKURU - 572101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41116
WP No. 30228 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATIVE)
ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTIRCT,
AT TUMAKURU - 572101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
5. THE TALUK PLANNING OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
DUGADIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AT DUGADIHALLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. ACHAPPA P B. AJITH ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R6
SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 AND R7
(VK NOT FILED)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)
QUASH THE IMPUGNED INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED
09/02/2024 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 AS
PER ANNEXURE-G. B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED
RECOMMENDATION ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT IN TUGIPA/NRLM/SANJEEVINI/DOORU/02/2024-
25 DATED 26/06/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-J. C) QUASH THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41116
WP No. 30228 of 2024
HC-KAR
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
UNDER REF. NO. KSRLPS / ADHR/COMP/2/2024-ADHR-KSRLPS
DATED 24/7/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari there by quash the impugned investigation report dated 09/02/2024 preferred by the Respondent No.5 to 7 as per ANNEXURE-G.
b) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari there by quash the impugned recommendation order passed by the Second Respondent in TuGiPa/NRLM/Sanjeevini/ Dooru/02/2024-25 dated 26/06/2024 as per ANNEXURE-J.
c) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari there by quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent under Ref. No. KSRLPS /ADHR/COMP/2/2024-ADHR-
KSRLPS dated 24/7/2024 as per ANNEXURE-K
d) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari there by quash the impugned Respondent order passed by the Second TuGiPa/NRLM/Sanjeevini/Dooru/2023-24 dated -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR 30/09/2024 by removing the petitioner without any enquiry on the ground of misappropriation of funds of Rs.50,000/ without any material proof as per ANNEXURE -L.
e) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari there by quash the impugned communication letter of dismissal of the petitioner issued by the fourth respondent infavour of the petitioner in dated 08/10/2024 under Ref. No. Tha. Pam. Chi/N.R.L.M/Sanjeevini/ Dooru/2023-24 dated 08/10/2024 as per ANNEXURE -M.
f) Pass such other writ/s or order/s, directions which are deemed to be fit on the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Cluster Supervisor under in-
source employment before respondent No.4 on 26.12.2013. On 13.10.2023, a false complaint was submitted by one Sukanya and one Sumalatha without any signature, to respondent No.2 and they have stated that they are representing all the aggrieved -5- NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk women. Based on the false complaint by unknown persons, respondent No.2 has issued a direction to respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The petitioner, after receiving an enquiry notice, submitted a detailed reply on 06.11.2023. Respondent No.2, without conducting an enquiry, has passed an order of termination of the petitioner from service. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Respondents No.2, 4 and 7 filed a statement of objections contending that, the respondents have received a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds. Based on the complaint submitted by Sukanya and Sumalatha, they initiated enquiry proceedings. Based on the enquiry report, respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before passing of the impugned order by the respondents, no enquiry was held. He submits that, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of the circular dated 22.02.2008 issued by the Government as well as the circular dated 13.12.2001 issued by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat. He submits that, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submits that, based on the complaint received from Sumalatha and Sukanya, an enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was passed. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was inducted in the services of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that, the respondents have received complaints from Sukanya and Sumalatha. Based on the complaint, respondent No.2 has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. Respondents, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order. From the perusal of the alleged complaint submitted by one Sumalatha and one Sukanya, it does not bear the signature of the complainants on the complaint. The respondents have passed a resolution terminating the petitioner from service. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of termination, filed this writ petition.
9. In an identical matter, this Court in the case of B.U. Panduranga Vs. Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Ballari and Others1, set aside the similar resolution considering the exposition laid down by the 1 WP No.104426/2018, disposed of on 15.01.2021 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India2, which reads as follows:
"14. The impugned resolution passed by the second respondent is contrary to the circulars issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat and the Government. I would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in 1978 (2) SCR 621 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass under the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority. It is thereby conclusively held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
15. The power to terminate the service of the petitioner, involves civil consequence and therefore, the 2 AIR 1978 SC 597 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41116 WP No. 30228 of 2024 HC-KAR procedure contemplated ought to have been followed. The nature and extent of adhering to the principles of natural justice depends upon the facts and circumstances, but at the same time, it is also well accepted that the principles of law that principles of natural justice can be read into a provision, unless applicability of such principles of natural justice is expressly or impliedly excluded.
16. In the said Act of 1993, applicability of natural justice is not expressly or impliedly excluded. The Court cannot ignore the legislative mandatory requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made."
10. As observed above, the respondents, before passing an order of termination, the petitioner was not heard; no enquiry was conducted. Hence, the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41116
WP No. 30228 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned report/orders vide Annexures-G,
J, K, L and M are hereby set aside;
iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner by following the due procedure;
iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42