- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3439 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUSHMA L.J. W/O. RAJU D.C., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, T. HOSAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T.HOSAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE R-3 GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 29.11.2024 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged a resolution dated 29.11.2024 passed by respondent No.3-Grama Panchayath, by which she was sent on long leave until the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.2 took a decision on the complaint lodged against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as a data entry operator at T.Hosahalli Grama Panchayath, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District on 10.03.2022. She claimed that she was discharging her duties to the satisfaction of respondent No.3. She alleged that the vice-president and the members of the Grama Panchayath were inimically ill disposed towards her and had lodged a complaint against her on 15.11.2024 alleging that she transferred money illegally to her relatives and friends in respect of various scheme implemented by respondent No.2. Consequent to the said complaint, a show-cause notice was issued by respondent No.3 on 19.11.2024 calling upon a petitioner to show cause why action should not be initiated against her. The petitioner submitted her reply on 20.11.2024 which was forwarded to the respondent No.2-Executive Officer, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 Taluk Panchayath. She claims that she did not transfer any money to her family members or to her friends as alleged. The reply of the petitioner was thereafter forwarded to the 2nd respondent for further action. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent passed a resolution dated 29.11.2024 and sent the petitioner on long leave awaiting the decision of respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the provisions of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, there is no power vested in the panchayath to send the petitioner on long leave without conducting any enquiry. He contends that as per Section 62 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, the power to suspend an employee is only with the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha that too when disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is contemplated or pending. He contends that without conducting any enquiry sending the petitioner on long leave is itself a punishment and the same cannot be allowed unless an enquiry is conducted. Even otherwise, he contends, the impugned resolution was passed on 29.11.2024 and till date, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 respondents have not taken any decision to either conduct an enquiry or to suspend the petitioner from service or to allow the petitioner to report back to duty. The learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned resolution be set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to report back to work. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed the contentions of the petitioner. He contends that by the impugned resolution, the petitioner was sent on long leave awaiting the decision of respondent No.2 in respect of the complaint lodged against her. He therefore contended that the petitioner is neither suspended from service nor terminated. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the resolution passed by respondent No.3. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 6. The impugned resolution passed by respondent No.3 shows that the petitioner was sent on compulsory leave until the 2nd respondent decided the complaint lodged against her and the reply submitted by her. This resolution was passed on 29.11.2024 and from then on, the petitioner is kept out from service. If respondent No.3 had any grievance against the petitioner or if it contemplated any enquiry against the petitioner, it must have done so by this time. Since, respondent No.3 has not taken any decision and the respondent No.2 has not decided the complaint lodged against her, the petitioner cannot be kept out of service perpetually. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of by directing respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to report back to work. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to report back to duty within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is always open for respondent No.3 to take suitable action after receipt of the report from respondent No.2. However such action shall strictly be in accordance with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11855 WP No. 3439 of 2025 Sections 62 and 113 of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE JS/-, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10