Disposed

Harekal Gram Panchayath v. Sri Sadeeq

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024WA/797/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by a Gram Panchayat against reinstatement of a suspended Bill Collector with subsistence allowance arrears. The court directed immediate compliance with the panchayat's reinstatement resolution and modified the single judge's order to confine arrears to 50%, payable in twelve monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement per 29.02.2024 resolution to be complied forthwith; 50% arrears of subsistence allowance payable in twelve equal monthly installments; I.A.No.2/2021 dismissed.

Harekal Gram Panchayath Vs Sri Sadeeq — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HAREKAL GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HAREKAL GRAM PANCHAYATH, MANGALURU - 574 199.

¶11

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HAREKAL GRAM PANCHAYATH, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 199.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. SADEEQ, S/O USMAAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT ODDADAGURI MANE, HAREKALA VILLAGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 199.

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYATH, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRISH M K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. DEVARAJ C H., GOVT. ADV FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 39560/2016 ( S-RES) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS AND THERE BY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF S AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶28

in W.P.No.39560/2016 (S-RES) whereby the learned Single

¶29

Judge has disposed of the writ petition by stating in Para No.2 of the order as under:

¶30

“2. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service subject to disciplinary proceedings. Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER reported in CDJ 2015 SC 129 held that if an employee is placed under suspension and enquiry is not initiated by the framing of charges within three months in such an event, he is entitled to reinstatement. Thus, the petitioner has made out a case so as to issue direction to the concerned respondent to pass the order for reinstatement into service subject to the result of disciplinary proceedings, if any. If the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance, the same shall be calculated and disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶31

2. Suffice to state that, the respondent was working

¶32

with the appellants in the cadre of Bill Collector, Harekala Grama Panchayat, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. He was suspended from the service on 25.07.2012. Allegations were

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶34

made against him that he had misused the Panchayat Funds in connection with the collection of Tax.

¶35

It was the case of the respondent that, the appellants have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings by framing Article of Charge.

¶36

It is seen that, the respondent had filed the writ petition being 39560/2016 seeking implementation of the resolution dated 26.07.2014 with a prayer to restore his service as Bill Collector with effect from the date of resolution with all consequential benefits. In this regard, it may be stated vide the resolution dated 26.07.2014 the appellants have suspended the respondent from his service. Though it is the stand of the appellants that, there was an error in the resolution in as much as the appellants intend to dismiss the respondent from the services.

¶37

Be that as it may, the final direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellants is to reinstate the respondent, subject to any disciplinary proceedings. The direction is also that, if the respondent has not been paid any subsistence allowance, the same shall be calculated and

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶39

disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶40

We had heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, on the last date of hearing i.e., 09.07.2024.

¶41

Today, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, as per his instructions, though a resolution has been passed by the appellants, on 29.02.2024 to reinstate the respondent in service, but only to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- that too by way of monthly installments of Rs.5,000/- as arrears.

¶42

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, as it has been decided by the appellants to reinstate the respondent, they should reinstate the respondent forthwith.

¶43

On the issue of payment of the arrears of subsistence allowance is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the respondent shall be satisfied instead of 100% arrears of subsistence allowance, the respondent is paid 50% of the same.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶45

On this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellants has left it to the Court to decide the issue appropriately.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the resolution dated 29.02.2024 of the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service, we are of the view that, this decision be complied forthwith. In so far as the grant of arrears of subsistence allowance is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that, the subsistence allowance is paid to a suspended employee to sustain himself.

¶47

It is a fact that, the respondent was suspended from the services on 25.07.2012. Twelve years have goneby, but no subsistence allowance has been paid.

¶48

The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the appellant Nos.1 to 4 being Panchayat and its functionaries, any direction by this Court to grant complete arrears would put financial burden on the Panchayat, which is required to undertake many functions for the welfare of the village/its people, in the larger public interest.

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶50

Though the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be contested, but if in law, the respondent is entitled to the subsistence allowance that too, for sustaining himself during the period of suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and the ground of financial burden is not sustainable. It may be stated here that it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent was gainfully employed.

¶51

We by taking on record, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent shall confine the benefits payable to him as per the order of the learned Single Judge to 50% of the total arrears, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge by directing the appellants to pay 50% of the arrears of subsistence allowance to the respondent.

¶52

The same shall be paid in twelve equal monthly installments to be fixed by the appellants, after determining the 50% of the total arrears payable to the respondent.

¶53

In terms of the above, the writ appeal is disposed of.

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:26719-DB WA No. 797 of 2021

¶55

¶56

In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, I.A.No.2/2021 has become infructuous and is dismissed.

sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Harekal Gram Panchayath v. Sri Sadeeq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harekal Gram Panchayath v. Sri Sadeeq

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

Arun Kumar K J Vs the Divisinal Controller and Disciplinary Authority

M/S Sos Children'S Village Vs Dr. G T Channa Reddy

Sri Cheluvaraju H P Vs State of Karnataka

V Shivananjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shivanna N Vs Smt Mahadevamma

Dr Shruthi S B Vs the State of Karnataka