Allowed

Sri N R Nandish v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/10218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an impugned order of dismissal against a Library Supervisor. The Court held that denying the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and an opportunity to show cause violated principles of natural justice, overriding the existence of an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of dismissal quashed; petitioner reinstated; no honorarium for period of dismissal; respondent directed to allow future submission of report and opportunity to show cause before action.

Sri N R Nandish Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10218 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI N R NANDISH S/O RAJASHEKARAPPA N G AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A KASABA HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, NAVLLURU, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571118.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D J.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD
Date: 2024.08.03
11:17:26 +0530

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶15

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH NANJANAGUDU

¶16

MYSURU DISTRICT - 571118.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶19

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH MYSURU MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 119.

¶20

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAVLLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANJANAGUDU MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 119.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G, DATED 26/02/2024 AT BEARING NO. CCA/02/2023-24, BY THE NO. 2, FOR DISMISSAL OF SERVICE FROM THE PETITIONER. 2) DIRECTION, DIRECTING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE FROM THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF SUPERVISOR OF LIBRARY, NAVALLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NANJANGUDU TALUK, AT ANNEXURE-H, DATED 05/03/2024 TO THE R2.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is appointed as a Library Supervisor with Navaluru Grama Panchayath, Nanjanagudu Taluk. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Order dated 26.02.2024 [Annexure-G]. The second respondent, by this impugned order, has removed the petitioner from service citing the provisions of Rule 20[ii] of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayatraj [Grama Panchayat Library and Information Centre Supervisors Services] Rules, 2022.

¶29

The first respondent, in the course of this order, has recorded that the petitioner was kept under suspension at the first instance, but the suspension is revoked and he is reinstated. The second respondent has also recorded that on receipt of a complaint against the petitioner that he had, as a matter of affront, placed the photograph of Baba Saheb Ambedkar behind an almirah and hung a

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶32

photograph of another below the photograph of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, and a team was constituted, and this team, after inspection, has filed its Report opining that the petitioner was indeed guilty of affront.

¶33

Sri Sathisha D J, the learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not issued with a copy of the report, nor is he extended an opportunity to show that there could be no allegation of causing any affront, and insofar as the hiding of photograph as a further affront, the learned counsel submits that the complainants themselves have withdrawn the complaint stating that within the library premises, a Women’s Organization also functions and when a photograph fell accidentally, it was placed just below the photograph of Baba Saheb Ambedkar so that the concerned could retrieve the same.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶37

As against these submissions, Sri

¶38

Chandrakanth R Goulay, the learned counsel for the respondent-Panchayath, submits that the petitioner is employed on honorary basis subject to payment of honorarium and on the condition that his services would be dispensed with even without notice if there is reason for the same, and that with the team constituted filing a Report about the petitioner's conduct in intending an affront, appropriate decision is taken and the petitioner cannot have any cause against such decision. The learned counsel also submits that petitioner, if aggrieved by the decision, must avail the appellate remedy under the relevant provisions.

¶39

These rival submissions are considered.

¶40

This Court must opine that the petitioner's case that a copy of the Report is not furnished to him is not contested, and crucially, a copy of the Report is also not placed before this Court. Even if this Report was

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶43

placed, this Court is of the considered view, given the consequences that have ensued, the petitioner should have had a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such Report. The petitioner may not be entitled for a full-fledged inquiry as in the case of permanent employee, but a reasonable opportunity to show cause against substantial allegations must be extended to him. As regards the alternative remedy, it would suffice for this Court to observe that when it is demonstrated that an action is in violation of principles of natural justice, the availability of alternative remedy will not be a reason for this Court to refuse exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the afore, the

¶44

following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The petition is allowed quashing the second respondent's impugned Order dated 26.02.2024 [Annexure-G] and

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:25499 WP No. 10218 of 2024

¶49

directing the second respondent to

¶50

reinstate the petitioner.

¶51

[b] The petitioner will not be entitled to any honorarium for the period that he has suffered dismissal.

¶52

[c] The second respondent is reserved with liberty to furnish a copy of the Report that is filed and extend due opportunity to the

¶53

petitioner before any action is taken.

¶54

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶55

AN/-

Sri N R Nandish v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N R Nandish 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Subraya R Hegde Vs Canara Bank

Sri Srinivasamurthy S/O Late Pillappa Vs Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Board

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai Vs Central Government of India

Karthik M S/O Late Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pamesh Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka