Sri Ananda N., Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI ANANDA N., S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR (NOW UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL) HOSAYALANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH JAVANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT R/AT HOSAYALANADU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK-577598.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Location: HIGH RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT COURTOF KARNATAKA RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21284 WP No. 5061 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE PRESIDENT HOSAYALANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH JAVANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK

¶19

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577511.

¶20

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HOSAYALANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH JAVANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST-577511.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1: SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R5: R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED: SRI H G SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE DATED: 05.02.2025 AT ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE R-4 AND TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

¶28

the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated

¶29

05.02.2025 vide Annexure-K, passed by the fourth respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been removed from the service.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21284 WP No. 5061 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that he was working

¶33

as a bill collector in the fifth respondent – Grama Panchayat. He has been kept under suspension by order dated 04.03.2024, pending departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the impugned order vide Annexure-K has been passed and he has been removed from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order vide Annexure-K is passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. No enquiry has been conducted as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of pay, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of service of Employees of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘the said Rules’). On this ground alone, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

¶35

The learned counsel for the Panchayat has not disputed that the notice is not served on the petitioner. He contended that the allegations against the petitioner

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21284 WP No. 5061 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

are serious in nature. After considering the materials available on record, he has been dismissed from service.

¶39

The learned AGA appearing for the State contended that for dismissal of a panchayat employee, a rule has been made by exercising power under Section 311 of the Karnataka Gramaswaraj and Panchayatraj Act,1 1993. Rule 8 of the said Rules prescribes the procedure for conducting an enquiry. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.

¶41

It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was working as a Bill Collector in Grama Panchayat, he has been kept under suspension by order dated 04.03.2024. Thereafter, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the said Rules, the impugned order vide Annexure-K has been passed. The impugned order is passed contrary to the provisions of the said Rules, and in

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21284 WP No. 5061 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

violation of the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned order requires to be quashed.

¶46

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶47

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The impugned termination order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-K is quashed.

¶49

(iii) The order of suspension dated 04.03.2024 vide Annexure-A will continue for a further period of six months.

¶50

(iv) The respondents are directed to complete the enquiry proceedings as per Rule 8 of the said Rules, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

(v) If the enquiry proceedings are not concluded within six months, the respondents are

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21284 WP No. 5061 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

directed to re-instate the petitioner into the

¶55

service.

¶56

(vi) It is also made clear that the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

¶57

(vii) In respect of the subsistence allowance which is not paid, as on today, the same shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31

Sri Ananda N., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ananda N., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vishwabharathi Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkathayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagesh E Vs State of Karnataka

C Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Its

Smt. Sudhamani M M Vs the Managing Director

H T Shankar Vs the Managing Director