- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 111056 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: VENKAREDDY S/O TIMMAREDDY HOSAMANI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETD. ASST. AGRICULTURE OFFICER, R/O: HOUSE NO.38, ‘JANAKIRAM’ BUILDING, TEJASWI NAGAR, DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH.P.HUDEDAGADDI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN, MAHATMA GANDHI RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTY SCHEME, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HAVERI. 3. THE DISTRICT WATER SHED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HAVERI. 4. THE ASST. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, WATER SHED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEAR SURYA LODGE, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HAVERI. 6. NIRANJANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSAHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. RAMESH.N.MISALE., ADVOCATE FOR R2-5 [ABSENT]; R6-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Suresh P.Hudedagaddi., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. When the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 10.03.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. Hence, for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 appearance of counsel for respondents 2 to 5, it was ordered to be listed on 17.03.2025. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, either personally or through video conferencing. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to pass appropriate order on the merits of the case. An emergent notice to respondent No.6 was ordered on 08.12.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.6 is served and unrepresented. Respondent No.6 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The short facts are these: It is said that the petitioner was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer at Ingalagundi Gram Panchayat. He retired from service on 31.05.2013. It is said that there was no black spots in his career. When this was the position, the sixth respondent filed a compliant to the Ombudsman – the second respondent for the alleged irregularities committed in the works done under the NAREGA Scheme. The second respondent after - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 receipt of the said compliant without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner passed the order on 20.02.2014 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,68,005/-, after the retirement of the petitioner. The third respondent issued a letter dated:21.04.2014 to the petitioner regarding the passing of the order by the second respondent and directed the petitioner to file objections if any. After the receipt of the said order, the petitioner filed a detailed objection on 29.04.2014. The third respondent sent the objections to the second respondent for taking necessary action. After the receipt of the intimation, the Ombudsman did not hold inquiry and pass the order intimating the third respondent to take necessary action at their level only. Thereafter, the fourth respondent intimated the petitioner regarding the recovery of the amount from the Accountant General by a letter dated:05.06.2014. To this letter, the petitioner submitted objections. It is stated that without considering the documents and the objections filed by the petitioner the fourth respondent pass the order on 09.09.2014 for recovery of the amount. The petitioner states that he has received the said order on 13.09.2014 and immediately filed the Writ Petition. The petitioner has assailed the order - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 dated:20.02.2014 passed by the Ombudsman in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the order passed by the Ombudsman is opposed to the principles of natural justice. He argued by saying that before passing the order, a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The principal ground on which this court is asked to quash the impugned order is that there is an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Suffice it to note that the two principles of natural justice are: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 1. Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet - No one should be made a judge in his cause or the rule against bias. 2. Audi alteram partem - hear the other party, or the rule of fair hearing, or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard. The principle of Audi alteram partem is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. The omnipotence inherent in the doctrine is that no one should be condemned unheard. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the show cause notice was not issued to him, hence, the order of recovery of amount is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A. A perusal of the same would reflect that the petitioner was not given a show cause notice. However, the Ombudsman went ahead with the matter and unilaterally passed the order for recovery of amount of Rs.1,68,005/-. Furthermore, the petitioner was not given an opportunity and hence, the impugned order is opposed to the principles of natural justice and bad in law. Needless to say, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4840 WP No. 111056 of 2014 the consequential orders are also bad in law. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash impugned order. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The impugned order dated:20.02.2014 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59