Smt Shashikala C Vs the Chief Executive Officer

dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.1273/2022 filed by the petitioner who was employed as data entry operator in Enmoor Grama Panchayat. She along with one Mr. Mohan B., bill collector found to have misappropriated sum of Rs.39,845/-, the tax collected between 2016-17 and 2018-19.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41334-DB WA No. 996 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Facing the said allegations, Mr. Mohan B., the

¶35

bill collector had committed suicide on 03.09.2019.

¶36

The petitioner had been dismissed from service on the ground that she had admitted her guilt in several communications addressed to the higher authorities and therefore, there was no requirement for conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has accepted the said contentions of the respondent and held that in view of the admissions made by the petitioner/appellant in several communications addressed to the higher authorities, no disciplinary proceedings required to be conducted.

¶37

Mr. Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the petitioner signed the typed letter placed before her under coercion and there was no voluntary admission by her admitting her misconduct of misappropriation. He further submits that the petitioner has not admitted her guilt in the

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41334-DB WA No. 996 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

departmental enquiry and therefore, purported/alleged admission outside the departmental enquiry has no value.

¶41

A permanent government servant cannot be

¶42

dismissed summarily without conducting the departmental proceedings inasmuch as the permanent government servant is protected under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

¶43

We see substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2006) 13 SCC 581 , we are of considered view that the permanent government servant cannot be dismissed summarily on alleged admission made outside the departmental enquiry. In view of the above, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. We reserve liberty to the respondent to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner and conclude the same by issuing the chargesheet and

¶44