- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 35046 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: GURU M.G S/O JOGIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, MOSALE HOSAHALLI HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DIST-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.) AND: 1. THE PRINCPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. 5. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MOSALEHOSALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MOSALEHOSALLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R4 & R5) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-F THAT THE RESOLUTION DATED 13.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-5 THAT IS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MOSALEHOSALLI AND CONSEQUENTLY CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS WATER MAN/WATER OPERATOR OF MOSALEHOASALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH BY CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12.12.2024 GIVEN TO THE R-4 AS PER ANNX-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a dismissed Waterman in Mosale Hosahalli Gram Panchayat is before this Court questioning Annexure-F, resolution dated 13.06.2024 of the fourth respondent wherein it is resolved to dismiss the petitioner for the alleged misconduct. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Girish B. Baladare for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Naveen Chandrashekhar for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraju for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as Waterman on 13.04.2011 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 in the fifth respondent – Grama Panchayat and for the last more than 13 years petitioner is working as such. It is contended that without providing an opportunity and without conducting any enquiry, fifth respondent has passed resolution to dismiss the petitioner alleging misconduct. Learned counsel places reliance on 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 Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘2020 Rules’) and submits that without any enquiry as prescribed, the respondents could not have taken action to dismiss the petitioner. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when serious allegations are made against the petitioner, respondents ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner. The action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prays for setting aside the same. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraju for respondent Nos.4 and 5 would submit that there are many allegations against the petitioner and petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for the last six years. But, as there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner, there was no option but to take action against the petitioner. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed and the documents placed on record. But, however, he is not in a position to answer as to whether enquiry was conducted before passing resolution to dismiss the petitioner as Waterman. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which would arise for consideration is as to, Whether the impugned resolution resolving to dismiss the petitioner alleging misconduct is sustainable in law? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 6. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative and the impugned resolution requires to be quashed for the following reasons: 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner was working as Waterman in the fifth respondent-Grama Panchayat since 2011. The impugned resolution wherein it was resolved to dismiss the petitioner reads as follows: “¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁgÉãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï DzÀ ªÀÄAeÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà CPÁ°PÀ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁgÉãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï ªÀiÁgÉãÀºÀ½î EªÀgÀ zÀĪÀðvÀð£É zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ ºÀ¹vÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw gÁdå C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ¸À¨sÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ²æà UÀÄgÀÄ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£ï ªÀiÁgÉãÀºÀ½î gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ UÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸À¨sɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¹vÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁgÉãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV zsÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î, PÉÆ¥Àà®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁlgï ªÀiÁå£À DzÀ ZÉÃvÀ£ï PDO gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ ©qÀ®Ä £ÉëĸÀ®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 8. A reading of the above would indicate that it was resolved to dismiss the petitioner alleging misconduct and dereliction of duty. Before taking the above decision, no opportunity whatsoever is provided to the petitioner. No notice was issued or the enquiry conducted. 9. Rule 8 of 2020 Rules requires initiation of disciplinary action against erring employees. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for conducting enquiry and thereafter the Grama Panchayat is empowered to impose any punishment. 10. In the instant case, admittedly no opportunity of show cause notice is issued or enquiry as required under Rule 8 of 2020 Rules is conducted, hence the impugned resolution is not sustainable in law and requires to be quashed. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed in part. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3106 WP No. 35046 of 2024 b) Impugned resolution dated 13.06.2024 of the fifth respondent insofar as resolving to dismiss the petitioner is quashed. c) Respondent No.5 is at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. d) The respondent No.5 shall reinstate the petitioner within two months from today. e) The petitioner would not be entitled for any arrears of salary, since he has not worked ad consequential benefits would depend on the outcome of enquiry to be held against petitioner. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14