Writ petition challenging dismissal of a temporary municipal bill collector for non-timely remission of collected funds; Court foundemployment permissible dismissal.
Petitioner's application for quashing of dismissal order dismissed. Pending interim orders dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32377 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
S.N. SHIVASHANKAR S/O NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.1948/36, 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR RING ROAD, DAVANAGERE-06
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.03.2013 BEARING NO.¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/PÉJAJJ¸ï/¹Dgï/35/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an endorsement dated 16.03.2013 bearing No.¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/PÉJAJJ¸ï/¹Dgï/35/2010-11, issued
by the respondent No.2 by which, the order dismissing him from service was confirmed. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the appellate authority namely, respondent No.1 by which, his statutory appeal filed on 07.04.2009 against his order of dismissal was dismissed.
dated 29.01.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be initiated against him in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The petitioner submitted his reply, which the respondent No.2 found to be not satisfactory. The respondent No.2 framed charges and enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and admitted his guilt. He also claimed that he had deposited a sum of Rs.30,200/- before the City Municipal Council at Davanagere on 07.01.2003. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent No.2 passed an order discharging the petitioner from service on 31.05.2005.
(ii) In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 10.02.2011 to the respondent No.1 stating that three Bill Collectors including the petitioner were accused of misusing revenue collected from the residents within the municipal area and that in so far as Mr. H. Shivaji Rao and Mr. S.P. Mehboob Ali were concerned, respondent No.2 had imposed a lighter punishment and therefore, sought permission to re-engage the services of the petitioner, if the respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:38670 WP No. 32377 of 2013
No.1 considered modifying the order dismissing the services of the petitioner.
(iii) However, nothing turned on the above following which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority/respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 31.05.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority/respondent No.2. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary employee and therefore was not entitled to any protection under the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Condition of Service) Rules, 1991.
NC: 2024:KHC:38670 WP No. 32377 of 2013
another person named Mr. Mehboob Ali was not dismissed from service but was handed down a lighter punishment. He therefore, contends that the petitioner must have been treated on par even in the case of imposition of punishment.
NC: 2024:KHC:38670 WP No. 32377 of 2013
had to be complied with, which in the instant case was followed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were treated differently in the matter of imposition of punishment, is not justified since Mr. H. Shivaji Rao was an officer of other duty, which meant that he was from different department and the respondent No.2 did not have the powers of dismissing him from service. Therefore, the respondent No.2, in its wisdom, felt that imposition of sentence of reduction of three increments would be sufficient. However, in so far as petitioner is concerned, he was an employee on temporary services and therefore, was expected to tread carefully as his terms of employment itself made it clear that his appointment would be put to an end if the respondent No.2 was dissatisfied with his service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity in the matters of imposition of sentence by the disciplinary authority.
NC: 2024:KHC:38670 WP No. 32377 of 2013
any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the irregular deposition of 30,200/- by a temporary bill collector justifies dismissal of service.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity in punishment with permanent employees similarly charged.
Whether procedural safeguards of 1957 Rules applied to a temporary employee were correct.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.N. SHIVASHANKAR
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THE COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE NAGARASABHE
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
