Allowed

Shri. Rajesh. D v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/2019/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Grama Sahayaka dismissed by the Tahsildar based on allegations linking him to fraudulent revenue entries and a criminal case petitioned against his dismissal. Holding that condemnation without a formal disciplinary enquiry was impermissible, the High Court set aside the dismissal and directed a fresh enquiry within three months, with reinstatement thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.09.2023 set aside; enquiry officer to be appointed and enquiry completed within 3 months; petitioner entitled to seek reinstatement after enquiry report considered.

Shri. Rajesh. D Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2019 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. RAJESH D., S/O. SHRI DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT BENACHIGERE, HUDALURU VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 572223

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572216.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.08.2023 (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-P) AND ENDORSEMENT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶20

ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.09.2023 BEARING NO.HOA CR:01/2016-17 (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A) AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 24.08.2023 at a meeting presided over by the respondent No.2 and an endorsement bearing No.HOA CR:01/2016-17 dated 28.09.2023 issued by the respondent No.2, by which, he was dismissed from service. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to reinstate him with full back-wages and consequential benefits.

¶25

The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Grama Sahayaka under the respondent No.2. He contends that he had served as a Grama Sahayaka for six years without any blemish. On 02.07.2022 Crime No.157/2022 was registered and a First Information Report was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 02.07.2022 filed by Tahsildar. As per the said complaint, a person named Mr.G.H.Satish Kumar had

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶27

fraudulently altered the revenue records and facilitated grabbing of Government land by private individuals. The petitioner contends that there was no allegation against him in the complaint. None the less, the respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 07.07.2022 on the ground that a criminal case was lodged against him. He challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.3228/2023. This Court in terms of the order dated 19.04.2023, allowed the writ petition and reserved liberty to the respondent No.2 to take a decision in the matter after conducting an enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner contends that despite repeated representations, the respondent No.2 failed to reinstate him into service. The respondent No.2

¶28

then issued a notice dated 18.07.2023 calling upon the petitioner to present himself for an enquiry on 27.07.2023. The petitioner contends that no enquiry was conducted on the said date, which prompted the petitioner to submit another representation seeking reinstatement. Later, respondent No.2 issued another notice dated 19.08.2023 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 24.08.2023 for the enquiry. The petitioner contends that no enquiry was held on the said date

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶31

but the respondent No.2 conducted proceedings and upheld his earlier order dated 07.07.2022 dismissing the petitioner from service. This order was apparently based on a circular issued by the State Government bearing No.R.D.3/MVS:72 dated 16.09.1978. The respondent No.2 also referred to the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid case on 30.09.2022 where the petitioner was accused of conspiring with accused No.2/Kariyanna in entering his name in the revenue records. It was also alleged that the petitioner had brought about certain revenue entries in the name of his mother in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.126 of Tippur Village, Gubbi Taluk and Sy.No.31 of Yakkalagatte and thereby had attempted to grab Government land. The respondent No.2 therefore held that services of the petitioner was not required and passed the impugned order dismissing the services of the petitioner.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that dismissal of the petitioner is based on an allegation that the petitioner had brought about colourable entries in the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶36

revenue records in Sy.No.126 of Tippur village and Sy.No.31 of Yakkalagatte village of Gubbi Taluk and that he had attempted to grab Government land. She therefore, submits that the order dated 24.08.2023 was not a dismissal simpliciter but was stigmatic and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to have conducted an enquiry. In support of her contention, she relied upon several judgments and contends that even while dismissing a temporary employee from service based on a misconduct or an allegation, an enquiry is mandatory. Therefore, she contends that impugned order is not in accordance with law and therefore deserves to be interfered with.

¶37

Per contra, the respondents have filed statement of objections and contends that the respondent No.2 had issued a notice after this Court passed an order in W.P.No.3228/2023 and the petitioner filed detailed objections to the said notice. The respondent No.2 had fixed a hearing on the objections on 27.07.2023. However, due to official exigencies, the petitioner could not be heard and the case stood adjourned to 24.08.2023. The respondent No.2 again issued another notice to the petitioner to appear on 24.08.2023. The petitioner was

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶39

present before the respondent No.2 on 24.08.2023 and contended that he had already filed his detailed objections and that he had nothing else to say. They contend that after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 by following the due process of law, has passed the order in question. It is further contended that in the order appointing the petitioner, it is specifically provided that the respondent No.2 is entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner, if the services of the petitioner were unsatisfactory or undesirable. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is passed after due application of mind and does not warrant interference.

¶40

The appointment of the petitioner as Grama Sahayaka is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the order of appointment did contain a condition that the respondent No.2 is entitled to dismiss the petitioner, in the event of his services being found unsatisfactory or undesirable. If the respondent No.2 desired to dismiss him on the ground that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory, he could have done so, but without imputing any misconduct. However, if the dismissal was on the basis of a criminal case registered

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶43

against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 must have realized that the petitioner was innocent until he was proved guilty. Therefore, the respondent No.2 must have framed articles of charge based on the allegations made in the charge sheet that the petitioner had conspired with Kariyanna to concoct revenue entries in his name and that he had made revenue entries in the name of his mother and served it on the petitioner, an opportunity must have been given to reply to the charge and after considering the reply, if any, appoint an officer to enquire into the charge and submit a report and after considering the report and furnishing a copy to the petitioner, issue a notice calling upon him to show cause why the report should not be accepted and a punishment imposed. After considering the reply if any, to proceed to impose suitable punishment or exonerate him. This procedure is inevitable in all cases where an employee is dismissed if it is based on some misconduct. In the case on hand, the impugned order was based on two allegations namely, (i) that the petitioner was complicit in Cr.No.157/2022 and (ii) that the petitioner had brought about revenue entries in the name of his mother in respect of certain

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶45

Government land. The respondent No.2 could not have condemned the petitioner unheard.

¶46

The respondent No.2 being the disciplinary authority must have appointed any officer as an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations and thereafter take a conscious call, whether the services of the petitioner had to be continued. Without doing so, the respondent No.2 cannot dismiss the petitioner without following due process of law is something similar to what is contained in Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set at naught on this short ground alone. Hence the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside.

¶49

(ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to appoint any of his subordinate or any independent person as an enquiry officer who shall conduct an enquiry as

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:36422 WP No. 2019 of 2024

¶52

stated above. This exercise shall be done within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to seek reinstatement, soon after the respondent No.2 considers the enquiry report that may be submitted.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Shri. Rajesh. D v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rajesh. D 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

Sri P Nagarajan Vs Union of India

Sri. Sunil Pattennavar Vs the Managing Director

Multi Pearl Apartment Owners Association Vs Sri Dwarakanath G

Mr Sanjeevaiah H Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri T R Manjunath, Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Smt Kruthika M v Vs the Commissioner