D T Chandrappa Vs the Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

D T Chandrappa Vs the Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, subject to the result of the enquiry; prayer (a) not pressed and did not survive; pending I.As. dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, despite this Court's directions in WP No.23839/2021 to complete the disciplinary enquiry within the stipulated time (four months from order dated 06.07.2022), the respondents failed to do so and must be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.

Court's answer

Since the enquiry (initiated in 2016, nine years completed) was not completed within the four-month period directed by this Court's order dated 06.07.2022 in WP No.23839/2021, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service; the reinstatement is subject to the result of the enquiry.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will not press prayer No.(a) (quashing of the charge memo dated 12.09.2022); accordingly, prayer (a) does not survive for consideration.

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter — Writ Petition (S-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 25 June 2025 by Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad. Petitioner D.T. Chandrappa, Clerk-cum-Data Operator in respondent No.3-Grama Panchayath, was dismissed from service; his earlier writ petition WP No.23839/2021 was allowed on 06.07.2022 with liberty to the respondents to initiate and complete enquiry within four months. Charge-memo dated 12.09.2022 (No.Grampanchi/CCA/CR-01/2022-23) was thereafter issued, but the enquiry (initiated in 2016) remained incomplete even after the lapse of nine years. Counsel did not press prayer (a) seeking quashing of the charge memo. Holding: respondents directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, reinstatement subject to the result of the enquiry; writ petition disposed of; pending I.As. dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22175 WP No. 20388 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.20388 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

D.T. CHANDRAPPA S/O DODDATHIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, COMPUTER OPERATOR, CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA-577501.

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH,

CHITRADURGA-577501.

PDO, CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CHARGE MEMO AND CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN NO.GRAMPANCHI/CCA/CR-01/2022-23 DATED 12.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22175 WP No. 20388 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not press prayer No.(a). In view of the submission,

prayer (a) does not survive for consideration.

The only relief sought in the writ petition is that, in spite of directions issued by this Court in WP No.23839/2021, respondents have not completed enquiry within the time stipulated and have not reinstated the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.

The petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Data Operator in respondent No.3-Grama Panchayath. While, he was in service, he was dismissed from the service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.23839/2021. This Court by order dated 06.07.2022 allowed the writ petition, reserving liberty to

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22175 WP No. 20388 of 2024

HC-KAR

the respondents to initiate enquiry in accordance with law and complete the same within a period not later than four months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has initiated enquiry and issued charge-memo to the petitioner. So far enquiry has not been completed within the time stipulated, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.

Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a statement of objections producing the resolution passed by Panchayath at Annexure-R2 and contended that the Panchayath has passed a resolution to reinstate the petitioner into service subject to the enquiry which was initiated. The resolution was not approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath.

Be that as it may, enquiry was initiated in the year 2016 and now 09 years have been completed. Even after directions of this Court in WP No.23839/2021

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22175 WP No. 20388 of 2024

HC-KAR

disposed of on 06.07.2022, directing to complete the enquiry not later than four months, the enquiry has not been completed. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. The reinstatement of the petitioner is subject to the result of the enquiry.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

In view of disposal of petition, pending I.As., if any,

are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30