Disposed

Ganapathi Gennappa Desai v. the Adhyaksha Gram Panchayath Nerse

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2012WP/23033/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging dismissal orders of a Gram Panchayat employee. Court directed the Chief Executive Officer to verify if a notice was issued and if the petitioner repudiated it. Pending verification of notice service, the petition was disposed of without finally deciding on the legality of the dismissal orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Executive Officer to verify records regarding issuance of notice and ascertain if the petitioner accepted or repudiated it.

Ganapathi Gennappa Desai Vs the Adhyaksha… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 21^st day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 23033 / 2005 ( S Res )

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Ganapathi Gennappa Desai 40 yrs, S/o Genappa Desai R/a Nerse, Khanapur Taluk Belgaum Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri R M Kulkarni, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

1 Adhyaksha, Gram Panchayath Nerse, Khanapur Taluk Belgaum

¶12

2 Gram Panchayath, Nerse By its Secretary Khanapur Taluk, Belgaum

¶13

3 Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath, Belgaum

¶14

Respondents

¶15

(By Sri S R Shinde, Adv. for R1-2)

¶16

¶17

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash annexure B dated 18.12.2004 and also annexure C dated 1.8.2005.

¶18

The Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 1.8.2005 – annexure C of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belgaum and also the Notice dated 18.12.2004 – annexure B passed by the Gram Panchayat, Nerse.

¶21

Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the office of the Gram Panchayat, Nerse on a monthly pay of Rs.600/- and thereafter, his appointment was confirmed with effect from August 8, 1995 under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. The salary has been enhanced from Rs.600 to 900 and then to Rs.1,200/- p.m. and he has worked for more than ten years. Without giving him any opportunity, on 18.12.2004, the Secretary of Nerse Gram Panchayath has issued a notice – annexure B that in the meeting convened on 18.12.2004, it was resolved to discharge the petitioner from

¶22

¶23

service as against which, in the appeal filed, the order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer confirming the order of dismissal. Hence, this petition.

¶24

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶25

According to the petitioner’s counsel, before passing the

¶26

order of dismissal by resolution at annexure B, the Gram Panchayath ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. On the allegation made in the representation made by the public, without hearing the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity and in violation of principles of nature justice, the order of dismissal has been passed, which is bad.

¶27

Per contra, counsel representing the respondent submitted, in spite of issuing notice, petitioner failed to reply to the same and as per S.113 of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat has got power to confirm the

¶28

¶29

order of dismissal passed by the Gram Panchayath as per the resolution. The order at annexures B and C stand to reason and rather the petitioner himself did not avail the opportunity despite service of notice.

¶30

It appears, petitioner has served for ten years. According to him, no notice has been served on him. According to the respondent authority, despite issuance of several notices, petitioner neither replied for the same nor was ready to accept the notice issued. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the authorities i.e., the Gram Panchayath’s order of dismissal by a resolution and the confirmation of the order of dismissal by the Chief Executive officer. As a matter of fact finding, the appellate authority on the allegation of negligence and dereliction of duty i.e., misappropriation, having found that there is material, has confirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

¶31

¶32

S.113 of the Act provides for appointment, disciplinary

¶33

action and removal of employees. The grievance of the petitioner is, he has not been served with notice. There are two orders – one of dismissal and another is confirmation of the order of dismissal in the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶34

Without interfering with the order passed by the Gram Panchayath Secretary and the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner is hereby directed to give a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Belgaum who shall secure the records maintained by the Panchayath regarding issuance of notice and if it is found that petitioner had been issued with notice, whether he has accepted it or not, and then the order of dismissal has been passed, there need not be any review of the order. If notice is not issued by the Gram Panchayath before passing the resolution, then it requires reconsideration. According to petitioner’s counsel, even if a resolution is passed, before effecting the order of dismissal, show cause notice ought to have been issued regarding imposing severe

¶35

¶36

punishment and that has not been done. However, as noted above, it is for the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, according to law.

¶37

With the above observation, petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/- Judge

¶39

Ganapathi Gennappa Desai v. the Adhyaksha Gram Panchayath Nerse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathi Gennappa Desai v. the Adhyaksha Gram Panchayath Nerse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beera Sidda Banne Vs Mohammad Imam Koujalagi

Ganapati, S/O.Ramu Patil Vs Ashok,S/O. Ramachandra Chavan

G Hulikuntappa S/O G Huleppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Pavitra Madiwallappa Matti Vs the State of Karnataka

Marappa S/O. Kariyappa, Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Siddappa Vs Mudakappa