Allowed

B G Lingesh v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2020WP/7444/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a termination order issued against a petitioner archak without a hearing. The High Court held that the order violated natural justice and quashed the decision despite pending litigation considerations related to COVID-19 restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order terminating the petitioner's services as Archak is quashed. A fresh notice is directed to be issued giving reasonable opportunity for defense considering the COVID-19 pandemic.

B G Lingesh Vs the Chief Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7444 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.G.LINGESH S/O BASAVARJAPPA G AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/71, OCCUPATION: ARCHARKABEERLINGESHWAR TEMPLE, P.B.ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, BESIDE BEERLINGESHWAR TEMPLE, JAYDEVA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE-577002.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA OFFICE OF SECRETARIAT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS AND ENDOMENT (MUZARAE) VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶17

THE TASILDHAR AND MUZARAE OFFICER DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577004.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.04.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner claims to be an Archak of

¶24

Beerlingeshwar Temple, Davanagere, and that he was appointed by respondent No.3 in the year 2005-06. He claimed that due to COVID-19 pandemic, he could not perform the duties of Archak in the Temple to the satisfaction of the devotees. He would also contend that he was paid the salary for the month of March 2019. In terms of Annexure ‘G’, respondent No.3 has passed an

¶25

¶26

order terminating the petitioner from the services of Archak of the Temple. The petitioner has therefore challenged the validity of Annexure ‘G’ on the principal ground that he was not given an opportunity of being heard on the principal ground that he was not given an opportunity of being heard.

¶27

A perusal of Annexure ‘G’ would disclose that the proceedings to terminate the services of the petitioner was based upon the complaint lodged by the devotees of the Temple. Following such complaint, respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the complaint to the Commissioner of Muzarai Department and that following the same, report was requisitioned under Section 69-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Upon receipt of the report, a notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 09.03.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by 18.03.2020. It is found from the impugned Order that on the failure of the petitioner to show cause, the impugned Order is passed terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

It is more than evident from the impugned

¶30

Order that the petitioner was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to defend the proceedings against him and the impugned order is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no mention whether the show cause notice dated 09.03.2020 was in fact served on the petitioner prior to 18.03.2020. Even assuming that the show cause notice was served the respondent No.3 ought to have granted sufficient time for the petitioner to prepare his defense. The respondent No.3 was exercising a judicial function and thus was expected to strictly follow the principles of natural justice, which unfortunately is not complied with. Hence, the impugned Order is not sustainable.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed . The

¶32

order dated 23.04.2020 vide Annexure ‘G’ to the petition passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶33

The respondent No.3 shall issue a fresh notice

¶34

to the petitioner and give him reasonable opportunity to submit his defense having regard to COVID 19 pandemic

¶35

¶36

which is still not fully relaxed and hear out the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The respondent No.3 shall ensure that the copies of the complaints lodged by the devotees shall also be furnished to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

sma

B G Lingesh v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B G Lingesh v. the Chief Secretary

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

Sri Sharathkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Sheelavantar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yogish Acharaya Vs the State

Pramod T R Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yashwanth Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

Madhu Vs State of Karnataka by