- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: G.M.RAMAKRISHNA S/O. MUDDARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, GRAMASAHAYAKA, BHAKTHARAHALLI CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI, KASABA, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/A. GOPAGONDANAHALLI, VADERAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H M UMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU-572101 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 4. THE TAHASILDHAR, MADHUGIRI TALUK, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 5. K.V.YOGANARASIMHIAH, S/O. K.V. VEERAKYATHAIAH, R/O. GOPAGONDANAHALLI, VADERAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TQ, TUMKUR DIST, PIN 572132 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ORIGINAL RECORDS IN PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PERUSING THE SAME TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. HOA/CR-19/24-25 DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.HOA/CR-19/24-25 dated 03.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 appointing the respondent No.5 as the Gram Sahayak of Bhaktarahalli Revenue Circle, Madhugiri Taluk. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 who was the Gram Sahayak of Bhaktarahalli Revenue Circle, Madhugiri taluk, submitted his resignation on 05.10.2019 which was accepted by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on 11.10.2019 by the respondent No.4. He contends that certain allegations were made against him which resulted in a letter dated 08.11.2019 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4 to take suitable action. The respondent No.4 then issued a notice to the petitioner dated 11.11.2019 calling for an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the respondent No.4 denying the allegations. The respondent No.4 then addressed a letter dated 09.12.2019 to the respondent No.3 enclosing therewith the explanation submitted by the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 without due application of mind and without considering the reply submitted by him directed the respondent No.4 to remove the petitioner from service till a final order is passed by the concerned Court where the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. On the basis of the letter issued by the respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 No.3, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 17.12.2020 relieving the petitioner from service. (iii) The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.7865/2020. This Court in terms of the order dated 10.07.2024 held that the petitioner could not be relieved from service without an enquiry and thus, directed reinstatement of the petitioner, subject to outcome of the enquiry and further directed the respondent No.4 to conduct and complete enquiry on or before 30.09.2024. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 did not consider his case and without conducting an enquiry, issued the order dated 03.02.2025 appointing the respondent No.5 as Gram Sahayak in the place of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 had earlier submitted his resignation and the same was accepted and it was thereafter that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Sahayak. He contends that no enquiry was conducted as directed by this Court in W.P.No.7865/2020 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 and the impugned order is passed without due application of mind. He therefore contends that the order appointing the respondent No.5 is liable to be set at naught. 5. The petition is orally opposed by the respondent No.5 who contends that the petitioner had obtained appointment as Gram Sahayak without disclosing the fact that he was involved in a criminal case and that he had managed to obtain the appointment by playing fraud. 6. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.5 further contends that after the order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.7865/2020, an enquiry was indeed conducted and it was found that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification and that he was involved in a criminal case and therefore, the respondent No.4 exercised discretion and held that continuation of the petitioner was not warranted and in view of the experience that the respondent No.5 possessed as Gram Sahayak, he passed the impugned order appointing respondent No.5. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.5 was earlier working as Gram Sahayak in Bhaktarahalli Revenue Circle, Madhugiri Taluk and that he submitted his resignation on 05.10.2019, consequent to which, the post of Gram Sahayak, Bhaktarahalli Revenue Circule, fell vacant. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Sahayak in terms of an official memorandum dated 11.10.2019. As per the terms of the appointment of the petitioner, the appointment was for a period of 05 years. Even before the petitioner had completed his term of 05 years, the respondent No.4 attempted to remove the petitioner from service alleging misconduct. This Court therefore noticing that the respondent No.4 could not have removed the petitioner from service, without conducting enquiry allowed the writ petition, directed reinstatement of the petitioner and permitted the respondent No.4 to go on with the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 enquiry and held that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to result of the enquiry. 10. The respondent No.4 has thereafter conducted an enquiry and has found that there were serious allegation against the petitioner and that the same did not allow him to continue in service as Gram Sahayak and therefore appointed the respondent No.5 who had earlier submitted his resignation. If the respondent No.5 had submitted his resignation and was out of service, the respondent No.4 could not have reinstated the respondent No.5 into service on the assertion of the respondent No.5 that his resignation was not voluntary. Therefore, the impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 cannot be sustained. However it is to be noticed that the petitioner who was appointed on 11.10.2019 has worked ever since then which is beyond the period of 05 years and therefore, by efflux of time, his appointment has come to an end. Therefore, without going into the question whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service or not, since the term of the petitioner has expired, it is open for the respondent No.4 to invite fresh application to the post of Gram Sahayak in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15859 WP No. 5815 of 2025 accordance with notification dated 04/6th March, 1978. It is open for all eligible persons to apply for the said post. 11. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17