Allowed

Sri Nagaraja B B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/3695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Grama Panchayath Clerk-cum-Typist was dismissed solely because a Section 302 IPC crime was registered against him, without an enquiry or effective notice. Holding dismissal without enquiry violates natural justice under Article 14, the Court quashed the dismissal order and directed reinstatement without consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 05.12.2022 quashed; petitioner reinstated immediately without consequential benefits; respondents free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.

Sri Nagaraja B B Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3695 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NAGARAJA B B S/O SRI BORAIAH B C AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH BABU B N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S BUILDING,

¶13

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALLURU-560009.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHITRADURGA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶17

THE AREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH AREHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE AREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AREHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4 SRI KARTHIK YADAV U., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 22W7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 05.12.2022 BEARING NO. Gra.Pam.Ah/Sibandhi/C.R-1/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND R-4 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned

¶27

order dated 5.12.2022 issued by respondents 3 and 4 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶28

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶29

Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in Grama Panchayath on 4.7.2014. Pursuant to registration

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶31

of crime against the petitioner and his family members in Crime No.307/2022 alleging that petitioner’s uncle G.B.

¶32

Pale Gowda was found dead on account of multiple injuries, the petitioner along with his family members were subjected to judicial custody. Taking cognizance of this fact, respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner addressed to his residence. As there was no response and the door was locked, respondent No.4 issued a second show-cause notice taking note of the fact that petitioner was arrested by the Holalkere Police, respondents 3 and 4 have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner, which is under challenge.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the records. I have also given my anxious consideration to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶36

The Apex Court and this Court have consistently

¶37

held that before an employee is inflicted with penalty of

¶38

dismissal from service, the same has to be preceded by a proper enquiry. There is a mandate on the Enquiry Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as being a part of Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Attikaribettu Grama

¶39

Panchayath and another .vs. Ganesh and others[WA.No.543/2023 disposed of on 11.1.2024] is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The Division Bench was seized with a submission as to whether an employee against whom a crime is registered for heinous offences can be subjected to dismissal from service without an enquiry. Referring to the principles laid down by the US Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee .vs. Mcgrath¹ and also by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellis .vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation² was of the view that

¶40

1 95 L Ed 817

¶41

2 AIR 1986 SC 180

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶43

where an employee is convicted and sentenced for an offence involving moral turpitude, in such cases, the competent authority dispensing enquiry can straight away proceed to dismiss the employee. The Division Bench in the said case found that only criminal case is launched against the employee and therefore held that principles of natural justice being part of Article 14 and the fact that ours being a welfare State, the decision to terminate an employee has to be done in accordance with law. The CoOrdinate Bench in an identical case in W.P.No.543/2022, has expressed a similar view.

¶44

In the present case on hand, it is noticed that though respondent No.4 having taken cognizance of registration of crime has issued two notices. Petitioner had no occasion to contest these notices. The case of respondent No.4 is that notices were addressed to the petitioner’s residential address. However, the said fact is equally countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner and a statement is made that these notices were

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶47

addressed to the office address of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the Standing Counsel appearing for Grama Panchayath does not dispute the factual matrix that dismissal of the petitioner from service is not preceded by an enquiry. The argument on behalf of the panchayath that since there is threat to the grama panchayath members and the President and the fact that petitioner was found to be involved in heinous offence, it was well within the authority of respondent No.4 to dismiss the petitioner from service cannot be acceded to. This argument is not supported by any authority or judicial precedents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accede to the said argument. The principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment which reiterates the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that dismissal order is found warranting as the same is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised an objection in regard to the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶50

maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner has an efficacious remedy. This contention is countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner by citing the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited .vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and

¶51

Others³ .

¶52

ALTERNATE REMEDY NOT AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO ENTERTAIN WRIT PETITION:

¶53

While it is acknowledged that the petitioner has

¶54

a remedy of appeal, this Court retains the authority to intervene, particularly when substantial justice is at stake. Redirecting the petitioner to another forum would only exacerbate delays in obtaining justice. Further it would result in redundant proceedings, as the issues raised in both forums would likely overlap significantly. This duplication of efforts would not only burden the judicial system but also impose unnecessary costs and hardships on the petitioner. Allowing this Court to adjudicate the

¶55

3 AIR 2023 SC 781

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶57

matter expeditiously, rather than transferring it to another forum, serves the interests of judicial efficiency and resource management. The petitioner's right to access justice and seek redressal of grievances in a timely manner is paramount. Requiring the petitioner to navigate additional layers of legal proceedings before obtaining relief could unduly infringe upon his fundamental rights, particularly considering the prolonged pendency of the writ. Given the complexity and gravity of these issues, it is prudent for this Court, with its expertise and jurisdiction, to adjudicate the matter comprehensively.

¶58

The Court normally exercises restraint and

¶59

relegate the parties to avail the remedy of an appeal where the order under challenge is passed after affording an opportunity and there is adjudication on merits by following proper procedure. Therefore, where orders under challenge are passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court often owes a duty to entertain the petition in exceptional cases. Having regard to the

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12032 WP No. 3695 of 2024

¶61

factual matrix indicated in the observations made in the paragraphs supra, this Court is inclined to exercise jurisdiction though petitioner is having an efficacious remedy of an appeal. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that principles of natural justice can also be an effective ground before the appellate Court has no grounds to stand. The said argument cannot be acceded having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 only on the ground that crime is registered against the petitioner and his family members

¶62

for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has straight away proceeded to dismiss the petitioner. Therefore, the plea of alternate remedy cannot be acceded to. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra is squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

¶63