- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 30131 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SOUMYA S W/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR, GULLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563156, R/A M. HOSAHALLI, VC GULLAPALLI POST, BANGARPET SUB-DISTRICT, KOLAR DISTRICT 563129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANTHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563101. 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GULLAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563156. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 3. THE CHAIRMAN, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GULLAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563156. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 10/9/2025 BEARING NO. NIL VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS AISO ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS A DATA ENTRY OPERATOR AND NOT TO TERMINATE HER SERVICES TILL A FORMAL PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW ARE HELD EITHER BY THE EMPLOYER OR BEFORE THE COMPETENT CRIMINAL COURT FURTHER DIRECTION TO PAY HER THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat- respondent No.3 dated 10.09.2025 vide Annexure-C and also sought for mandamus directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner as a data entry operator and not to terminate her service till a formal proceedings as per law are held either by the employer or before the competent criminal Court, with a direction to pay her salary and allowances from time to time. 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner joined the service in pursuance of the resolution passed by the PDO, Gullahalli Gram Panchayat, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. The name of the petitioner was forwarded for approval of the post on 28.08.2024. The petitioner submitted her representation to the Lokayukta police drop the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 proceedings against the petitioner vide representation dated 20.11.2024. 4. On 13.06.2025, one Sri. M.Govindappa who was the Grama Panchayat Secretary Grade-1, Gullahalli Grama Panchayat, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar, addressed a letter to the Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, Kolar, there is no mistake committed by the petitioner to drop her name in the proceedings. 5. The Lokayukta police addressed a letter to the Gram Panchayat vide communication dated 04.09.2025 seeking that who has delegating power to remove her from service. Meanwhile, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 10.09.2025 to remove the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry and without Panchayat notice. The petitioner, aggrieved by the resolution dated 10.09.2025, removing the services of the petitioner, filed this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 6. The notice was issued to the respondents. Despite service of notice, the respondents remained unrepresented. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 without holding any enquiry has passed the impugned resolution. Thus, the impugned resolution is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, he also placed reliance upon the Circular dated 13.12.2001 issued by the Executive officer of Taluk Panchayat and Circular dated 22.02.2008 issued by the Government. The said circulars disclose in regard to the holding of disciplinary proceedings to be conducted under Section 113 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act of 1993', for short). To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.104426 of 2018, disposed of on 15.01.2021. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the service of Grama Panchayat in the year 2017 as a Data entry operator vide resolution dated 23.06.2017 passed by the PDO, Gullahalli Grama Panchayat, Bangarpet. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the Lokayukta police to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. One Govindappa filed a complaint towards the Gram Panchayat Secretary Grade-1, Gullahalli Gram Panchayat, Bangarpet has addressed a letter to the Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, Kolar district, stating that there is no mistake committed by the petitioner and to drop her name from the proceedings. The Lokayukta addressed a letter to the Gram Panchayat vide communication dated 04.09.2025 seeking for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 clarification regarding the delegating power to remove the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the Grama Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 10.09.2025 to remove the petitioner from service. Before passing the resolution, the Grama Panchayat- respondent No.3 has not initiated any proceedings. 11. Section 113(3) and (4) of the Act of 1993, which provides that before terminating the employee from service, respondent No.2 has to hold an enquiry. The respondents without holding an enquiry has passed an order of termination of the petitioner from service. Thus, the resolution passed by respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, in order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the circular, which reads as under: Circular No. : ಾಅಪ 67 ಾಪಂ 06 dated 22.02.2008 " ಾೇ ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಬಂಗಳ ರುದ ಸು ಕಮ ೆ! ಸಂಬಂ"ದಂ#ೆ ಕ$ಾ%ಟಕ ಪಂಾಯ' (ಾ) ಅ*ಯಮ 1993 ರ ಪಕರಣ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 113 ಅ,ಯ *ರೂಪ.ೆಯಂ#ೆ ಅವ ಾಶ ಕ12ಸ3ಾ4ದು5, ಇದ7ಂದ ಸಂಬಂ"ದ ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯಗಳ8 $ೌಕರರ ರುದ :ಾವ;<ೇ ಾರ.ೆ =ಾಡ<ೇ ೆಲಸಂದ $ೇರ@ಾ4 ಅವರನುB #ೆೆದು ಾಕುರುವ;ದು ಸ ಾ%ರದ ಗಮನ ೆ! ಬಂ<ೆ. ಇದು CಾDEಾಕ $ಾFಯತತD ೆ! ರುದ@ಾ4ರುತ<ೆ. ಆದುದ7ಂದ, ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಬಂ ರುದ ಸು ಕಮ #ೆೆದು ೊಳ8Iವ ಮುನB ಅವ7ೆ ಒಂದು ಅವ ಾಶ *ೕ, ಅವರ ೇK ೆ ಪLೆದು ನಂತರ ಸೂಕ *Mಾ%ರ #ೆೆದು ೊಳ8Iವ ಅವಶFಕ#ೆ ಇರುತ<ೆ. ಆದುದ7ಂದ, ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ#ೆ ಸೃPQಕರಣ/ಸೂಚ$ೆ *ೕ,<ೆ. ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಬಂಗಳ ರುದ ಸು ಕಮ ೆ! ಸಂಬಂದಂ#ೆ ಕ$ಾ%ಟಕ ಪಂಾಯ' (ಾ) ಅ"*ಯಮ 1993 ರ ಪಕರಣ 113 ಅ,ಯ *ರೂಪ.ೆಯಂ#ೆ ಕಮ ೈೊಳ8Iವ ಸಂದಭ%ದ1U ಅವರ ರುದ5 ಸು Vರಮ #ೆೆದು ೊಳ8Iವ ಮುನB ಅವ7ೆ ಒಂದು ಅವ ಾಶ *ೕ, ಅವರ ೇK ೆ ಪLೆದು ನಂತರ ಸೂಕ *Mಾ%ರ #ೆೆದು ೊಳIತಕ!ದು5." 12. From the perusal of the above said circular, it is clear that the respondents have ignored the circulars while passing a resolution. The impugned resolution is not in accordance with Section 113(3) and (4) of the Act of 1993. The resolution passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to the circulars issued by the Chief Executive Officer and Government. The issue involved in this instant writ petition is squarely - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.104426 of 2018, disposed of on 15.01.2021. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to Section 113(3) and (4) of the Act and also circulars issued by the Chief Executive Officer and Government. This Court cannot ignore the legislative mandatory requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order/resolution is passed. 14. As observed above, I am of a considered opinion that the impugned resolution is not sustainable in the eye of law. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned resolution vide Annexure - C is hereby set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39530 WP No. 30131 of 2025 iii. Respondent No.3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. It is open to respondent No.3 to take appropriate action against the petitioner by following the procedure as contemplated under Section 113 of the Act of 1993. v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3