Sri C H Govinda Naika Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 30.5.2014 IN RESOLUTION NO.25/2014-15 (ANNEXURE - E) DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF BILL COLLECTOR OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARABE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTTUR, BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AND ORDER DATED 10.11.2014 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN DAKAJIPA/ADALITHA/GRAPAC/CR NO.81/2014-15(A2) (ANNEXURE - P) UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged a resolution bearing No.25/2014-15 dated 30.05.2014 passed by respondent No.4 dismissing him from service. He has also challenged an order dated 10.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.zÀPÀf¥À/DqÀ½vÀ/UÁæ¥ÀA¹/¹Dgï-81/2014-15(J2) by which, the

¶27

resolution of respondent No.4 was upheld.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶30

The petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-bill collector in respondent No.4 in terms of a resolution dated 06.11.1996. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by respondent No.2 vide its communication dated 07.05.2001. The petitioner contends that while he was working as bill collector, he was served with a notice by the respondent No.3 alleging irregularities such as, maintaining parallel bill book No.12051 for collecting the tax and entering the same in the said book and not depositing the amount so collected to the account of respondent No.4. The petitioner denied the allegations and requested the respondent No.4 to provide an opportunity to establish his bonafides. However, on 03.03.2014, the police inspected the bag of the petitioner in the presence of members of the Panchayat but in the absence of the petitioner and drew up a mahazar, where it was stated that neither the bill book bearing No.12051 nor any cash was found. The petitioner was then served with an order dated 03.03.2014 suspending him from service. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.4 at a meeting held on 30.05.2014, passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶33

The petitioner contends that after such dismissal, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 01.06.2014 to submit an explanation for maintaining bill book No.12051 and misappropriating the amount collected. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16.06.2014 denying the allegations against him and requested the respondent No.4 to reinstate him into service. This was followed by another notice dated 01.08.2014 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.9,078/- to respondent No.4 within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.08.2014 and requested the respondent No.4 to adjust Rs.9,078/- from out of his salary. In the meanwhile, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07.07.2014 to respondent No.3 requesting him to look into the matter and issue appropriate orders. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 in terms of his letter dated 16.08.2014 addressed to respondent No.4 stated that the respondent No.4 did not follow the procedure prescribed before terminating the petitioner from service and therefore, directed the respondent No.4 to reinstate the petitioner back into service. The petitioner armed with the order passed by respondent No.3, approached the respondent

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶35

No.4 and requested it to reinstate him into service. However, the petitioner was turned away and was directed to obtain an order from the office of respondent No.2. Accordingly, he filed an appeal before the respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 by a cursory order, upheld the resolution passed by the respondent No.4 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order dated 10.11.2014. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the resolution passed by the respondent No.4 as well as the order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was accused of misappropriating the funds belonging to the respondent No.4 and therefore, it was necessary for respondent No.4 to comply with the principles of natural justice by issuing appropriate notices and providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish his bonafides. He submits that not even a semblance of an enquiry was conducted before brandishing the petitioner and terminating his service. He therefore, contends that the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No.4 and upheld

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶38

by the respondent No.2 is colourable and deserves to be interfered with.

¶39

Per contra, the respondent Nos.2 and 4 have filed separate statement of objections contending that the petitioner had misused the tax collected from the general public and on 01.03.2014, the petitioner's bag was inspected in the presence of the President of Grama Panchayat. The bag contained a receipt book bearing No.12051, which contained entries in the handwriting of the petitioner and that the same was not reflected in the book meant for daily collection of tax. It was contended that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.9,078/which he did not deposit into the account of respondent No.4. It is contended that the petitioner misappropriated the said amount and hence, he was dismissed by a resolution dated 30.05.2014. It is contended that on 01.08.2014, the respondent No.4 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.9,078/-. In response to this, the petitioner on 04.08.2014 and 25.08.2014 admitted that he had collected the amount shown in the receipt book and agreed to reflect it in the cash book and also agreed that the amount may be deducted from out of his salary for the month of February,

¶40

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶41

It is contended that being aggrieved by the resolution passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 issued notices and called upon the petitioner to appear before it. The respondent No.2 after perusing the records and hearing the petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the resolution passed by respondent No.4. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to be re-instated.

¶42

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and had agreed to restore the amounts payable to respondent No.4. Thus, they contend that no indulgence is warranted with the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No.4 as well as the order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶43

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶44

8 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶46

The petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-bill collector on 06.11.1996. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by respondent No.2 vide its communication dated 07.05.2001. The petitioner was therefore, officiating on permanent basis and was therefore, entitled for a secured tenure. The respondent No.4 seems to have initiated steps to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that he had collected tax from the general public and had entered such collection in a parallel bill book and did not deposit the amounts so collected into the account of respondent No.4. This therefore, meant that respondent No.4 was accusing the petitioner of misappropriating the funds belonging to it. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.4 to have framed proper charges and the petitioner must have been put on notice so that he could reply to the charges. The respondent No.4 was bound to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and thereafter, take steps to pass disciplinary orders against the petitioner. However, the respondent No.4 has proceeded unilaterally by passing a resolution and terminating the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.4

¶47

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶48

falls foul of the principles of natural justice and the procedure for termination or dismissal of employee appointed on regular basis. The respondent No.2 also lost sight of this but cursorily referred to the allegations against the petitioner and upheld the resolution passed by respondent No.4. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 is entitled to dismiss or remove any employee in exercise of its power under Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, is wholly unjustified, as any action to remove a person holding a civil post without following due process of law would violate his right to establish his innocence. In that view of the matter, the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.4 and upheld by respondent No.2 warrants interference.

¶49

9. Hence, the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) This writ petition is allowed .

¶52

(ii) The impugned resolution bearing No.25/2014-15 dated 30.05.2014 passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:9277 WP No. 8036 of 2015

¶54