- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105258 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: YASIN KHAN S/O. AHMED KHAN MUDUGAL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TAX COLLECTOR, GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA, R/O: NIDASHESI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KUSHTAGI-583277, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA BY ITS SECRETARY, TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277, DIST: KOPPAL. 5. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TALUKA: KUSHTAGI-583277, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP; SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5; R2 AND R4 ARE SERAVED) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PAY AND CLEAR SALARY DUES OF PETITIONER AS PER DIRECTION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT DIRECTIONS, AS PER LETTER NO.Taa.Pam.Ku/Gra.Pan/B.Ka/C.R/2016-17/645 DATED 20.08.2016, AT ANNEXURE-L, TILL DATE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: (1) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to pay and clear salary dues of petitioner as per direction of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchyat directions, as per letter No. Taa.Pan.Ku/Gra.Pan/B.Ka/C.R/2016-17/645 dated 20-08-2016, at ANNEXURE- L, till date, in the interest of justice. (2) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to permit petitioner to sign muster roll and record his attendance. (3) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider case of petitioner for seniority, promotion and for fixing minimum wages for gram panchyat and local body employees, at Rs. 7930/PM, as per the G.O. bearing No. Kaa E 71 LWA 2015 dated 22-05-2015 is produced at ANNEXURE-H, in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 (4) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the arrear of salary dues of petitioner as per the G.O. bearing No.Kaa E71 LWA 2015 dated 22.05.2015 is produced at ANNEXURE-H in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Shri D.L. Ladkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1; Shri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 5. 3. The petitioner today is no more. Learned counsel Shri D.L. Ladkhan submits that right to sue would survive, if this Court would render the reason that the petitioner was entitled to some monetary benefits. Therefore, the matter is taken up. 4. The petitioner during his lifetime was appointed as a Bill Collector in Tuluvagera Panchayath, Kushtagi Taluka pursuant to a process of recruitment. The petitioner served the Grama Panchayath upto 2012. In 2012, began to remain unauthorisedly absent. Owing to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner, a communication is made on 21.07.2012 to the petitioner. The communication reads as follows. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 “UÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw PÀĵÀÖV EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ. «µÀAiÀÄ:- PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR(1):- PÀæ.¸ÀA.UÁæ.¥À.PÁ.vÀ/ 2011-12 ¢£ÁAPÀ 28/11/2011 G¯ÉèÃR(2):- PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ£ÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14/06/2012 G¯ÉèÃR(3):- PÀæ.¸ÀA.UÁæ.¥À.PÁ.vÀ/ 2011-13 ¢£ÁAPÀ 28/06/2012 ¥ÀæZÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ªÀgÀ¢. ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄzÉ£ÀAzÀgÉ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀëgÀ AiÀiÁ¹£ïSÁ£ï ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/11/2011 gÀAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ rªÀiÁåAqÀ gÀf¸ÀÖgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¹Ã¢ §ÄPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ EzÀƪÀgÉUÀÆ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ¢®è F «µÀAiÀĪÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ zÀAiÀiÁ¥ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR(2) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14/06/2012 gÀAzÀÄ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ¸ÁªÀÄ£Àå ¸À¨sÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/07/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ oÀgÁªÀ£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR(3) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/06/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄPÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ªÀ¸Àw AiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄ£É £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀzÀPÁÌV PÀĵÀÖV G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÁt PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÉ «Ä¤ «zsÁ£À¸ËzÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀå ¸Éë¹ JZÀÑgÀ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.¥Á£ÀªÀÄvÀÛgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ. ªÉįÁÌt¹zÀ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀ £ÀqÀvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ¢®è. C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdj DUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. JAlÄ ¢£ÀPÉÆ̪ÉÄä §AzÀÄ ºÁdjUÉ ¸À» ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀzÉ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÁÌV PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåxÀðªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÁzÀ - - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 AiÀiÁ¹£ï SÁ£ï ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛêÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À» ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ C©üªÀÈ¢üÞ C¢üPÁj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃj] vÁ: PÀĵÀÖV, f: PÉÆ¥Àà¼À" 5. The communication is indicative of the fact that the petitioner had misappropriated certain amounts and was regularly irregular to his work and was attending the office eight days once at his whim and fancy and marking attendance eight days once. The petitioner was issued further notice on 29.06.2012, it reads as follows: "PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï «µÀAiÀÄ: ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.06.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ. * * * * * F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉÃPÀÖgï DzÀ AiÀiÁ¹Ã£ï SÁ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-06-2012 gÀAzÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀ D¦üøïUÉ D±ÀæAiÀÄ, EA¢ügÁ ºÁUÀÆ CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À gÀf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è EzÁÝUÀ¯Éà ªÀÄzsÀå¥Á£À ¸ÉêÀ£É ªÀiÁr, ¥Á£ÀªÀÄvÀÛgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÀÄÌ ªÉÆÃzÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀiËTPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ °TvÀªÁV £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀÅ vÀ«ÄäAzÀ §A¢ügÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß zÀAiÀiÁ¥ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ UËgÀªÀ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 ¸À» ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ." 6. After issuance of plethora of notices, the petitioner is said to have appeared before the authority and gives an undertaking that he would repay the entire amount. The undertaking is as follows: “M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À£ï. JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉüÀ£Éà E¹éAiÀÄ dÆ£ï wAUÀ¼À E¥ÀàvÀÛ£Éà vÁjÃT£À°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæ.¥ÀA. vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ vÁ:PÀĵÀÖV EªÀjUÉ, £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁ²Ã£ï SÁ£À vÀA: CºÀäzÀSÁ£À ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ vÁ.PÀĵÀÖV F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ M¦àUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ°è PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ£ÉAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå »A¢£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.141617 gÀÆ. ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ SÁvÁ ¸ÀASÉå: 1033 PÉÌ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ-UÁæ.¥ÀA.¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀĪÀ½PÉAiÀÄAvÉ ªÉÆzÀ® PÀAvÁV 2:12-06-2017 0 0.30,000/- (2) G½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £À£Àß ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÁV C®à¸Àé®à ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ G½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀAvÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀÆ.50/-???? PÁUÀzÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¤d«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæweÁÕzsÁgÀPÀ ¸ÀܼÀ: vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-06-2017 AiÀiÁ²Ã£ïSÁ£À vÀA: CºÀäzÀSÁ£À ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀĪÀUÉÃgÁ vÁ: PÀĵÀÖV” 7. The amount of misappropriation was at ₹1,41,617/-, out of which in terms of the agreement the petitioner is said to have repaid ₹30,000/-. After the repayment, the petitioner is said to have remained again absent. It transpires that in the year 2018, the Taluk Panchayat communicates to the Grama Panchayat to take the petitioner back to duties. The contention of the petitioner is that they never took the petitioner back to duties. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner never appeared before the Grama Panchayath for him to take back to duties. These are all in the realm of seriously disputed questions of facts. To thrash out today the employee himself is not there. Bringing in the family into these proceedings in the aforesaid facts would neither here nor there, as the petitioner admittedly is not entitled to any relief for his conduct throughout his service, as it was a case of misappropriation and always being in the office in an inebriated state and not performing his duties. With all these allegations, though enquiry ought to have been conducted. But In the case at hand nothing has been done and nothing has been lost by the petitioners. In that light, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019 petition does not deserve any indulgence. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected. 8. The rejection of this petition will not come in the way of the wife submitting a representation seeking the terminal benefits accrued to the hands of the husband, who is now no more to be paid to the wife. The dismissal of this petition will not influence the Grama Panchayath to disburse any terminal benefits that the wife or the legal representatives of the petitioner would be entitled to. The same shall be considered in accordance with law and disbursed to the wife in the event of claim being made. 9. In the event such a representation would spring from the hands of the wife of the petitioner within four weeks from today, the Grama Panchayath shall consider the same within twelve weeks thereafter, strictly in consonance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6