Allowed

M M Nanjappa v. the Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024WP/5111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as a Bill Collector. The Court held that termination without a departmental enquiry was illegal, especially as the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post with existing rules not requiring SSLC qualification at the time.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.01.2012 terminating the petitioner's services was set aside, and the petitioner's services were directed to be restored with all consequential benefits.

M M Nanjappa Vs the Chief Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.M. NANJAPPA S/O LATE. M.M. MONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, KANNANGALA GRAM PANCHAYAT, AMMATTI ONTI ANGADI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI, DISTRICT: COORG.

¶12

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

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, PONNAMPET, VIRAJPET TALUK, DISTRICT: COORG.

¶14

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KANNANGALA, AMMATTI ONTI ANGADI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT. BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶15

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGUNDA, VIRAJPET TLAUK, COORG DISTRICT, BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH K. N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 - SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.04.01.2012, PASSED BY THE R1, HEREIN, VIDE ANNEXUREA. AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.PÉÆf¥ÀA:

¶24

DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ-2:01:2011-12 dated 04.01.2012 passed by the

¶25

respondent No.1 by which, the resolution of the respondent No.3 dated 17.02.2011 and the order terminating his service were upheld.

¶26

The petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector at respondent No.3 on 01.01.1988 under the provisions of Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983. While so working, the President of respondent No.3 kept the petitioner under suspension on 15.01.2009 exercising power under Section 62 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.5/2008-09. The

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶28

respondent No.2 after considering the contentions urged by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 15.12.2009 and directed the respondent No.3 to reinstate the services of the petitioner. This was followed by a letter dated 19.12.2009 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 directing the respondent No.3 to take back the petitioner to work. Despite the above, the respondent No.3 refused to accept the services of the petitioner till April, 2010. The respondent No.2 therefore, again addressed a letter dated 26.04.2010 directing the respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner. On 27.04.2010, the petitioner was permitted to resume duties at the respondent No.3. When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 30.04.2010 deputing the petitioner as a Bill Collector at the respondent No.4, pursuant to which, he reported to duty at respondent No.4 and worked there from end of April, 2010. However, on 20.11.2010, the respondent No.4 passed a resolution to return the services of the petitioner as he was not a resident within the panchayat area of respondent No.4. The petitioner was therefore, repatriated to the respondent No.3. He was relieved from duties at the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶30

respondent No.4 and the petitioner reported to duty at the respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 on 06.12.2010 stating that the power to repatriate the services of the petitioner lay only with the respondent No.2 and hence, termed the resolution of the respondent No.4 as invalid. Based on this, the petitioner was not permitted to work at the respondent No.3. The petitioner therefore, left with no other remedy approached the respondent No.2 for appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 09.02.2011 directing the respondent No.3 to take back the petitioner to duty. Nonetheless, respondent No.3 refused to permit the petitioner to resume his duties, which forced him to submit a representation dated 19.02.2011.

¶31

The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 never paid salary to which he was entitled to. Therefore, petitioner contended that he was neither allowed to work as Bill Collector nor was paid salary. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.No.11219/2011 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.3 to accept his services and also to pay the salary and arrears. This Court in terms of the order dated

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶34

18.07.2011 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondent No.3 to accept the services of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was directed to issue appropriate direction to the concerned Pachayat, who was liable to pay salary and arrears of the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner contends that in order to harass him, the respondent No.3 challenged the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification to hold post of Bill Collector and that he was involved in several cases of forgery and criminal activities and was an accused in Crime No.169/2003 and PCR No.12/2009. The respondent No.1 thus, passed an order upholding the resolution dated 17.02.2011 and consequently, terminated the petitioner from services of the respondent No.3.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's service could not be terminated on alleged ground of he not possessing the prescribed qualification or that he was involved in several cases of forgery. He submitted that an enquiry ought to have been conducted, where the petitioner could have a say.

¶40

The respondent No.3 has contested the writ petition and claimed that the respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 26.04.2010 had set aside the order of suspension without taking it into confidence and without following principles of natural justice. It contended that the respondent No.2 unilaterally held that the petitioner had not committed any act alleged against him and blindly set aside the order of suspension and directed the restoration of his services at the respondent No.3. It contended that the services of the petitioner were deputed to respondent No.4, who also was not willing to accept the services of the petitioner and sent him back to the respondent No.3. It is contended that the petitioner is involved in several criminal cases and therefore, is not a desirable person for his service to be continued at the respondent No.3. It contended that the respondent No.3 has

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶42

already appointed another suitable candidate, who is discharging duties punctually. The respondent No.3 contended that it was advised to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 after considering the track record of the petitioner held that the petitioner was not qualified to hold post of Bill Collector and besides was also accused in several criminal proceedings and therefore, is not a fit person to be continued as Bill Collector in the respondent No.3.

¶43

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 iterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to continue as Bill Collector at the respondent No.3.

¶44

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶45

The petitioner was suspended from services on 15.01.2009, which was set at naught in an appeal filed before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.5/2008-09. The respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to restore the services of the

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶47

petitioner. After a protracted process, the petitioner was taken back into service by the respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 deputed the petitioner to the respondent No.4 to work as a Bill Collector and the petitioner worked in the respondent No.4 from April, 2010 to November 2010. When things stood thus, the respondent No.4, refused to continue service of the petitioner on the ground that he was not residing within its limits and therefore, was not familiar with the residents. The respondent No.3, who was supposed to accept back the services of the petitioner claimed that the order returning services of the petitioner by the respondent No.4 was improper and invalid. The petitioner was therefore, constrained to report back to the respondent No.3 which however, did not accept him. The respondent No.3 long after the petitioner had resumed duty, challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 by which, the order of suspension was set aside, before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 instead of restricting the examination to the question whether the suspension was just and proper, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner without following the due process of law. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector in the year

¶48

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶49

1988 and the extant Rules namely, Karnataka Grama Panchayat (Staffing Pattern) and Pay Scales and Procedure of Appointment of Employees Rules, did not prescribe that a Bill Collector should possess a pass in SSLC. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No.1 to hold that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification. Even otherwise, the respondent No.1 could not have held that the petitioner did not possess the qualification in the year 2012, nearly 24 years after his appointment. This apart, when once the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post through regular process, the respondent No.1 could not have terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting an enquiry in the manner provided under the provisions of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 warrants interference.

¶50

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to ensure that the services of the petitioner are restored in the respondent No.3 notionally and award all consequential benefits in accordance with law. The same shall be complied within a

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:34086 WP No. 5111 of 2012

¶52