Sri. Prabhakara T.C. Vs the Chief Executive Officer

SRI. PRABHAKARA T.C. S/O LATE CHIKKALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS FORMARLY WORKING AS WATEMAN DODDABYADARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571434 RESIDING AT THIMMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571434

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NAIK VENKATRAMAN NAGAPPA., ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT PES ENGINEERING COLLEGE ROAD

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MANDYA 571401

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF TALUK PANCHAYATH PANDAVAPURA TALUK PANDAVAPURA

¶20

MANDYA DISTRICT 571434

¶21

DODDABYADARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571434 REPRESENTE BY ITS PERSIDENT

¶22

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DODDABYADARAHALLI GRAMA PACHAYATH KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK

¶23

MANDYA DISTRICT 571434

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M S DEVARAJU., ADV. FOR R1,

¶26

R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE R-3, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DTD 20.09.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-C, DIRECT, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION PASSED AGAINST PETITIONER, DTD 20.09.2022, PASSED BY THE R-3 GRAMA PANCHAYATH AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND NOTICE DTD 22.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-4 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶35

i. Call for the records relating the resolution passed by the third respondent, Grama Panchayath, dated 20.09.2022 as per Annexure-C, and;

¶36

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, set aside the impugned resolution passed against petitioner, dated 20.09.2022, passed by the third respondent, Grama Panchayath as per Annexure-C, and notice dated 22.08.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent as per AnnexureQ, and;

¶37

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direct the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Waterman with entire backwages from date of 20.09.2022 till its reinstatement, and grant all consequential benefits, and;

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.

¶42

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ

¶43

petition are as follows:

¶44

The petitioner was appointed as Waterman in respondent No.3 - Grama Panchayath on temporary basis vide resolution dated 08.08.2003 and his service was regularised by the Competent Authority. The name of the petitioner was entered in the employees list of Grama Panchayath and the petitioner has served total 19 years as Waterman. Respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 20.09.2022 passed the resolution and took a decision to dismiss the petitioner from service. The proceedings of the Panchayath is that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.286/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A) and 354(B) of IPC. It is also contended that the petitioner is not

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

eligible as Waterman and requested to remove the petitioner from the post of Waterman. The respondents before passing the resolution, no enquiry was held. Thus, the impugned resolution passed by the respondent-Grama Panchayath is in violation of principles of natural justice

¶48

and is in violation of Section 113(3) the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993'). The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.

¶49

Respondent No. 1 filed a statement objections admitting that the petitioner was appointed as a Waterman in respondent No.3-Grama Panchayath on a temporary basis and his services were regularized by the Competent Authority. It is contended that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.286/2022. Respondent No.1 by invoking the power under Section 113(3) of the Act of 1993, passed an order. It is also contended that the petitioner was issued with a

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

show cause notice on 30.09.2022 by respondent No.4 and sought for an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation and replied to the show cause notice. The petitioner made a set of representations to respondent No.4 on 07.10.2022 and 25.11.2022 stating that respondent No.2 may be directed to permit the petitioner to report the duty as Workman. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy under Section 113 of the Act of 1993. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were represented by their counsel, but the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 passed away and the Court notice was issued to respondent No.2 to 4. The Court notice was served on the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Despite service of Court notice, respondent Nos.2 to 4 remained unrepresented.

¶54

Page No.6 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 08.12.2025

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶59

learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that respondent No.1 before passing an impugned resolution, no charge memo was issued and no enquiry was held. Without holding an inquiry, passed a resolution to terminate the petitioner from service. The action of the respondent in terminating the petitioner from service without holding an enquiry is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 . Hence, on this ground, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1

¶62

submits that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the resolution was passed terminating the petitioner from service. The action of respondent No. 1

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

in passing the resolution, is in accordance with law. He also submits that the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy under Section 113(4) of the Act of 1993, and the petitioner has not exhausted the same. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶66

Perused the records and considered the

¶67

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶68

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was

¶69

working as Waterman in respondent No.3 - Gram Panchayath on a temporary basis and his service was regularised and he served in respondent No.3-Panchayath for more than 19 years. A complaint was filed against the petitioner, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.286/2022 for the offence punishable under 354, 354(A) and 354(B) of IPC. Just merely a criminal case filed against the petitioner, is not a ground to pass a resolution to terminate the petitioner from

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

service without holding an enquiry. Admittedly, the respondent has passed the resolution without holding an enquiry. The impugned resolution passed by respondent No.1 is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1978 (2) SCR 621, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass under the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority. It is thereby conclusively held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the principles of natural

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

justice are part of Article 14 and procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.

¶77

The power to terminate the service of the

¶78

petitioner, involves civil consequence and therefore, the procedure contemplated ought to have been followed. The nature and extent of adhering to the principles of natural justice depends upon the facts and circumstances, but at the same time, it is also well accepted that the principles of law that the principles of natural justice can be read into

¶79

a provision, unless applicability of such principles of natural justice is expressly or impliedly excluded.

¶80

In the said Act of 1993, applicability of natural justice is not expressly or impliedly excluded. The Court cannot ignore the legislative mandatory requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made.

¶81

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:44843 WP No. 4678 of 2024

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

As observed above, before passing the

¶84

impugned order of termination, petitioner was not heard. Since no enquiry was conducted, it is held that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶85