Allowed

Smt Vijaya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2020WP/14481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a Gram Panchayath to quash an appellate order directing reinstatement of a dismissed employee who admitted misappropriating funds, holding that repayment does not absolve the misconduct warranting dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; the impugned reinstatement order set aside; the dismissal order dated 13.08.2012 restored.

Smt Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.14481/2018 (S - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. VIJAYA W/O SHEKARA POOJARY, THE VICE PRESIDENT, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KOILA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K – 574 211.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶14

D.K. ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANGALURU, D.K. – 575 001.

¶15

¶16

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KOILA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. – 574 211.

¶17

ABRAHAM K.G., S/O GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RES/AT SANYASIMULE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. – 574 201.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI H.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SECOND RESPONDENT PASSED AN IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.1.2018 VIDE ANNEX-C ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner – Koila Gram Panchayath, in this

¶24

writ petition has called in question, the order dated

¶25

29.01.2018, of the second respondent - Chief Executive Officer directing reinstatement of the fourth respondent into the services of the Gram Panchayath.

¶26

¶27

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of

¶28

the writ petition are that, the fourth respondent was appointed in the Koila Gram Panchayath as a Bill Collector cum Peon on 18.05.1994, on temporary basis. By an order dated 20.03.1995, the services of the fourth respondent was regularized.

¶29

Pursuant to allegations of misappropriation

¶30

of funds of the Panchayath to the extent of Rs.55,386/-, the petitioner constituted a Committee to enquire into the allegations of the aforesaid misappropriation under Section 61A of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj And Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short). Pursuant to an enquiry conducted by the Committee after hearing the fourth respondent submitted its report stating that the fourth respondent has infact committed the offence and the offences are proved.

¶31

¶32

On 17.04.2011, the fourth respondent admitted the

¶33

guilt and undertook not to commit such acts in future.

¶34

Owing to the aforesaid facts, the petitioner

¶35

dismissed the fourth respondent from service on 13.08.2012, against which the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent – the Chief Executive Officer under Section 113 (4) of the said Act. The second respondent by his order dated 29.01.2018, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the fourth respondent into the service of the petitioner - Koila Gram Panchayath. It is this order that is called in question by the Koila Gram Panchayath in this writ petition.

¶36

Heard Sri Krishnamoorthy D., learned

¶37

counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri H.

¶38

¶39

Giridhar, learned counsel for caveator/fourth

¶40

respondent.

¶41

Second and third respondents are served and have remained unrepresented.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent had admitted his guilt that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.55,386/-. On account of his admission and the report of the Committee constituted under Section 61A of the said Act, he was dismissed from service. A subsequent act is that, the vacancy that arose due to dismissal of the fourth respondent was filled up on 23.02.2013, and was approved by the Government on 10.09.2014. Hence, the order of the second respondent suffers from vice of nonapplication of mind.

¶44

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel

¶46

appearing for the fourth respondent would seek to support the order as there was no opportunity given to him to prove his defence and the second respondent having considered the same has rightly allowed the appeal.

¶47

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶48

On an allegation that the fourth respondent has misappropriated an amount of Rs.55,386/-, proceedings were initiated by the Committee constituted under Section 61A of the said Act by the Koila Gram Panchayath. On 17.04.2011, the fourth respondent in reply to the show cause notice, admitted his guilt and undertook to refund the entire amount and assured the Panchayath that such

¶49

¶50

incident would not be repeated by him in future and sought to drop the proceedings. Based upon the findings of the Committee and the reply given by the fourth respondent to the second show cause notice, the petitioner - Panchayath dismissed the fourth respondent from service. After dismissal of the fourth respondent, the vacancy that arose was filled by an order 22.03.2013 and the same was approved by the State Government on 10.09.2014.

¶51

The fourth respondent who had filed an appeal against the order of dismissal under Section 113(4) of the said Act was allowed by the second respondent – Appellate Authority by his order dated 29.01.2018. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority to allow the appeal is rather strange as the Appellate Authority holds that the fourth respondent has repaid the misappropriated amount and having repaid the

¶52

¶53

amount, his removal from service would amount to two penalties for the aforesaid misconduct.

¶54

Appellate Authority completely ignores that

¶55

the allegation of misappropriation to which removal from service is the only penalty that could be imposed in the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the admission of guilt. Mere repayment of the amount will not absolve the fourth respondent of his misconduct. On the other hand, repayment of the amount would be admission of misconduct. Therefore, the order dated 29.01.2018 of the second respondent directing the fourth respondent to reinstate into the petitioner – Koila Gram Panchayath on the aforesaid flawed reasoning warrants appropriate interference.

¶56

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶57

¶58

ORDER

¶59

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

b. The order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the

¶61

second respondent is hereby set aside.

¶62

c. The order dated 13.08.2012 removing the fourth

¶63

respondent from service is restored.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

nvj CT:MJ

Smt Vijaya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vijaya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Venkataramanappa Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri. Halabasappa. G. M. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Smt Shifa Mariyam Vs M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Sri Mohammed Tahir Vs the State of Karnataka