Allowed

Sri K N Lokesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/1628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed an order suspending a Gri Shyal employee. The court ruled that only the Adhyaksha is empowered to suspend employees, and an order passed by an incompetent officer was invalid, directing reinstatement with benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by 5th respondent is quashed; petitioner reinstated with consequential benefits.

Sri K N Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.1628 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K N LOKESH S/O K N NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR KODIGENAHALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMUKURU DISTRICT R/AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMUKURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B O ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMKURU -572101.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶18

MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI-572132.

¶19

THE PRESIDENT KODIGENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMUKURU DISTRICT-572101.

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KODIGENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMUKURU DISTRICT-572101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1; SRI NAVEEN J. N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING DATED 26.10.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY R-5 AND AFTER PERUSAL TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE SAME.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by 5^th respondent suspending the service of the petitioner from Kodigenahalli Grama Panchayath, Madhurigi Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶27

Heard Sri Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for Sri. B.O.Anil Kumar, the petitioner and Sri. M.S.Nagaraja,

¶29

¶30

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶31

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Naveen J.N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. A.Nagarajappa, for respondents 2 to 5.

¶32

Sri Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised preliminary objection with regard to impugned notification dated 26.10.2021, whereby, the service of the petitioner was suspended by the 5^th respondent herein and in this regard, he invited the attention of the court to the notification issued by the 1^st respondent-Government dated 29.09.2020 and argued that only Adhyakhsha of Gram Panchayath is empowered to place an employee of Gram Panchayat under suspension during pending enquiry, however, in the present case, impugned order dated 26.10.2021 is passed by an incompetent officer i.e. 5^th respondent herein and accordingly, he sought for interference.

¶33

Per contra, Sri Naveen J.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State sought to justify the impugned order passed by the 5^th respondent.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶36

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the notification dated 29.09.2020, and Rule 8 of the notification of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing pattern, Scale of Pay, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of service of Employees of Grama Panchayat) Rules 2020. Rule 8 of the said notification reads as under:

¶37

“8. Disciplinary Authority:- 1() Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 62(d) and Section 113 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 disciplinary action shall be initiated against erring employees.

¶38

(a) The Disciplinary Authority of the concerned Grama Panchayat shall be powered to initiate disciplinary action against erring employees of the Grama Panchayat and to impose “fine or withholding of increment.”

¶39

(b) the Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayat is empowered to place an employee of Grama Panchayat under suspension where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶42

(c) The Grama Panchayat is empowered to reduce in rank, remove or dismiss employees from service”

¶43

The language employed in the above Rule makes it clear that Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayat alone is empowered to pass appropriate orders relating to suspension of any employee, however, in the present case impugned order has been passed by 5^th respondent who is an incompetent officer to deal with staffing pattern of employees of Grama Panchayat. In that view of the matter, since the incompetent person has passed impugned order, same amounts to violation of the relevant Rules of the notification dated 29.09.2020. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for interference in this writ petition. In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Writ Petition is allowed;

¶46

ii) Impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the 5^th respondent is hereby quashed and the respondent-Kodeigenhalli Grama Panchayat, Madhurgiri Taluk, Tumkuru District is directed to

¶47

WP No. 1628 of 2022

¶48

¶49

reinstate the petitioner into service with

¶50

consequential benefits.

¶51

SD/JUDGE

¶52

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri K N Lokesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K N Lokesh v. the State of Karnataka

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

G Hidayathullah Vs the Director of Higher Education

Kiran Kumar C Vs State of Karnataka

The Management of T.B.S.F Pre University Vs Shivaramu R

Smt Premalatha B R Vs State of Karnataka

S Mariswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shobhya Naik H Vs the State of Karnataka