Dismissed

D.M. Chandrappa, 35 Yrs v. Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2016WP/22293/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 seeking direction to a Gram Panchayat to take disciplinary action against an absent workman. The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, ruling that no immediate writ jurisdiction existed before a formal removal order was passed by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was thoroughly misconceived and the petitioner sought premature relief.

D.M. Chandrappa, 35 Yrs Vs Chief Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2016

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

Writ Petition 22293 / 2016 (LB Res)

¶6

Between

¶7

D M Chandrappa, 35 yrs S/o Maliyappa Devanur Gram Panchayath Devanur, Kadur Taluk Chikmagalur District

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Vikas M, Adv.)

¶10

And

¶11

1 Chief Executive Officer Gram Panchayath, Chikmagalur

¶12

2 Panchayath Development Officer Gram Panchayath, Devanur Kadur Taluk, Chickmagalur

¶13

3 Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath, Kadur Chikmagalur District Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Sachin B S, Adv.)

¶15

��

¶16

2/4

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying for a direction to implement the order dated 2.3.2016 – Annexure A, etc.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr Vikas, Adv. For Petnr. Mr Sachin, B S, Adv. For Respdts.

¶21

1 This writ petition has been filed in strange circumstances. The

¶22

petitioner B M Chandrappa is said to be an ex-workman working in the respondent Gram Panchayat, Devanur. According to the writ petition, the wife of present petitioner Bharathi obtained certain information from the respondent Gram Panchayath about the proposed action to be taken against her husband. The impugned endorsement dated 2.3.2016 of the Gram Panchayath states as under:

¶23

Smt Bharathi W/o Chandrappa D M is hereby intimated by the Panchayath Development Officer of Devanur Village, you have submitted application on 15.2.2016 for obtaining the information about the duty of Sri D M Chandrappa (Neeruganti) under Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2005. On examination of the application Sri D M

¶24

��

¶25

3/4

¶26

Chandrappa has not been dismissed from the service, but Chandrappa has remained absent continuously from 19.3.2013 to till date. Regarding the absence though we have issued the notice to Chandrappa, no reply received from him. Now as there are no elected members in the Gram Panchayath after the election of new members by discussing the matter of his work, action will be taken. And you have asked for copy of the proceedings of meeting of removal from duty and copy of the attendance book. By paying the Xerox charges to the Gram Panchayath, you can obtain the copy. The copies of the notice sent to your address is enclosed herewith.

¶27

Accordingly, the Gram Panchayath has informed the wife of the petitioner that as soon as the new elected members take over and the Panchayath is properly constituted, appropriate action in accordance with law, will be taken against Chandrappa. The petitioner, ex-workman has filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus/direction to the respondent Gram Panchayath to take action in pursuance of the information supplied to his wife under the Right to Information Act.

¶28

��

¶29

4/4

¶30

2 Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and upon perusal of

¶31

the contents of the endorsement, this Court is of the considered opinion

¶32

that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Only in the recent past i.e., on 2.3.2016 the impugned endorsement is communicated to the wife of the petitioner that upon constitution of the new Gram Panchayath after elections, appropriate

¶33

action in the matter will be taken. What has compelled the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, cannot be appreciated. Only after appropriate orders are passed by the respondent Gram Panchayath,

¶34

if he is aggrieved by the same, his remedy against such order can be availed. At this stage, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its jurisdiction on the basis of this endorsement.

¶35

Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶36

Sd/Judge

¶37

D.M. Chandrappa, 35 Yrs v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M. Chandrappa, 35 Yrs v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valdel Xtent Outsourcing Vs Nil

Downhill Holiday Resorts Private Limited Vs Nil

C Andanappa Vs the Official Liquidator

Manas Bar and Restaurant Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Rajarajeshwari Public School Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka