- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24300 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI THIMMANNA G S/O GOVIDAPPA D AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS CLERK CUM COMPUTER OPERATOR BYADAREDDYHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/O NEAR KENCHAMMA TEMPLE BYADAREDDYHALLI POST TALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 543. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHITRADURGA ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT - 577 501. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHALLAKERE TALUK PANCHAYATH CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK - 577 522. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BYADAREDDYHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH TALUKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA - 577 543. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1: SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R2 AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 3.12.2021 IN NO.ZPCTA- ADM20ZPS/28/2021-C.NO.17397 ISSUED BY R2 BY AGAINST THE PETITIONER ISSUE WRIT WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-Z2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 03.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-Z2 and also the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R only in respect of the conditions imposed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Data Entry Operator in respondent No.4, Grama Panchayat as per the Resolution dated 12.06.2006 at Annexure-C passed by respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Grama Panchayat sent a proposal to the Zilla Panchayat for approval of appointment of petitioner along with other employees. By order dated 30.04.2015, the appointment has been approved with a condition of one year probationary period. When the petitioner was under probationary period, on certain allegations against the petitioner, the Panchayat had terminated the petitioner from service by resolution dated 20.07.2015 vide Annexure-N. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 by filing an appeal under Section 113(4) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). By order dated 29.09.2018, the respondent No.2 has set aside the termination order of the petitioner with certain conditions. Being aggrieved by the conditions imposed in the impugned order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 29.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-R and the consequent order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 in respect of endorsement with regard to the seniority list at Annexure-Z2, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the service of the petitioner has been terminated without following due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the termination order by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 113(4) of the Act. By order dated 29.09.2018, the respondent No.2 has rightly set aside the termination order passed by respondent No.4, but imposed certain conditions. He submits that the respondent No.2 has no power to impose such conditions in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The same is contrary to the provisions of Section 113(4) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-R is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. He further contended that in the impugned order at Annexure-Z2, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 seniority of the petitioner has been considered from the date of his re-appointment. The said endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is also contrary to the law. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R dated 29.09.2018 has been challenged after lapse of 3 years. There is delay in challenging the order before this Court. He further contended that during the probationary period, since there was serious allegation against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has rightly imposed certain conditions in the impugned order. The petitioner has not challenged the same within the reasonable time. He has accepted the impugned order and has worked for 2 years. Now, he is not entitled to seek for any relief at the hands of this Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Secondly, in respect of seniority list, he has contended that in the impugned order dated 29.09.2018, there is a specific direction that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 petitioner has been reappointed from the date of impugned order at Annexure-R and for fixing the seniority list in the cadre of Date Entry Operator, the service of the petitioner has to be considered from the date of reappointment of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-Z2 has been issued in terms of the order passed at Annexure-R. There is no error or illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned AGA appearing for the State submits that there is delay in approaching this Court. The respondent No.2 has passed the order under section 113(4) of the Act in the year 2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2021. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seeking for any relief. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator in respondent No.4, Grama Panchayat as per the Resolution passed by respondent No.4 dated 12.06.2006. From the said date, the petitioner is working as Data Entry Operator. Thereafter, the respondent No.4, Grama Panchayat sent a proposal to the respondent No.2, Zilla Panchayat for approval of appointment of petitioner along with other employees. By order dated 30.04.2015, the appointment has been approved with a condition of one year probationary period. When the petitioner was working as Data Entry Officer and was under the probationary period, there was certain allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.4, Panchayat had terminated the petitioner from service by resolution dated 20.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 113(4) of the Act before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, by order dated 29.09.2018, has set aside the termination order of the petitioner passed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 respondent No.4. In the order dated 29.09.2018 at Annexure-R, certain conditions have been imposed which reads as under: DzÉñÀ £ÀA:d¦¥ÀA:D(2):UÁæ¥ÀAA/¹Dgï/-92/2015- 16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.09.2018 јłĥỳķẀė’ўΡń ΤẀΠẃĠỳѕгē’ Υł† Γ.нο.џΤ†гѕł, ěỳ.ж.ĥ’†., ќ—фŁ ĄỳAiÀÄ𠤪ÁðºÀPÀ е¢üĄỳΠ Ħỳх― Λ†ґŀїΤ ĘỳłΑĄỳΠ.-Ġỳńјгĉỳўλ,˜ѓłѕ—UÀðжѕėỳї—PÀ£ÁðlPÀ јгĉỳўλ Ğỳγ е¢їΒўќ 1993џ јłуџђ 113 (4) џ еїņўΥł†-.ΎќŀђĶΘοΉ.Ć’―†Τгѕјļ,ΨгΐїPÀèPïð уг угј―Łэφ жјĞ’†эφ, Ě’†яĞ’ΉĴẄΣŅ Ćỳłќ јгĉỳΝΎ шಳŅĄ’Ğ’ ēỳґ―ńу—, ˜ѓłѕ—UÀð -Ġ’ń зẀџї—Ļ PÀèPïð уг угј―Łэφ жјĞ’†эφ Ẅ—ĕ’ĹΝгѕ ē’Ć’ѕ—ĦỳуĠỳѕ ΐėỳгу:20.07.2015 џ Ćỳłќ јгĉỳўΎ ĥỳĜỳїŁ ẃě’ў ΤẂўẃгą’Ł(10)џΡńē’Ć’ѕ—Ą’―ಳŅĠỳѕ¤tðAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß и у―яĠ’†ċỳΠĆ’њџ—Ẁгē’џѕ—ĹјΉΧĕ’Ħỳх―Υł†-.ΎќŀђĶ Θο Ή. Ć’―†Τгѕјļ зẀџї—Ļ и Ψгĕ’ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÀèPïð уг угј―Łэφ жјĞ’†эφ Ẅ—ĕ’ĹĆ’ и Ą’ಳугя Ẃџѓ—ķхΣĆ’рಳјэ—IJќџ—ė’†ќуĜỳΉжĕ’†ΥΧĕ’. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 1. ẃѕΠ Χњľгΐў— и жĕ’†ẁ Ħ’―џΉΧѕ ΐėỳгуΐгѕ PÀèPïð уг угј―Łэφ жјĞ’†эφ Ẅ—ĕ’ĹĆ’ ќџ— ė’†ќĄỳΎĦ’―гΐ еї—Ѕ†ѕė’ Β†яĠỳ¯ĕ’ нгѕ— ΎΣў—Ẁ÷ѕ—. 2.ẃѕΠΧњľгΐў—иΨгĕ’¤ªÀð»¹zÀẄ—ĕ’ĹĆ’нѕ—Ğỳ¯ ĝỳẀ÷ĕ’† DyðPÀ ĥ„ґћŁхΣĆ’ Ħỳх― ċ’†Ẃijē’Ć’ CºÀðΠџ—Ẁ÷ΐґń. 3.ẃѕΠΧњľгΐў—Λ†ґĨгяẄ—ĕ’ĹĆ’ижĕ’†ẁĦ’―џΉΧѕ 07ΐїхಳрಳĆỳ¯уvÀðªÀåPÉÌĦỳъĞỳхѓуĨѕ—Ĺ.ѓΓļѕΡńẃѕΠ жĕ’†ẁẀ÷еĜỳїŁĢỳх—ѓķĕ’. 4. ẃѕΠ Χњľгΐў ќџ— ė’†ќĄỳΎў жĕ’†ẁẀ÷ ėỳŁĝỳґўѕ/ẃPÁðgÀªÀÅ C¯гĕỳĆ’Ī Ħ’―џΉẃ—Ẁ Βўќ ќѓ—ķжĕ’†ẁхΣĆ’рಳј·IJџ—ѓķĕ’. 5. ẃѕΠ Χњľгΐў— уvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ĦỳъĞỳѕ ΐėỳгуΐгѕ ċ’†Ẃijē’Ć’јΠхΌẃĠỳх—Ẁ÷ѕ—. 8. When the appeal has been filed under Section 113(4) of the Act, the appellate authority has to examine whether the termination order is passed in accordance with law or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 not. The appellate authority has to either confirm the order or set aside the order. Under the provisions of Section 113(4) of the Act, the respondent No.2 has no such power to impose conditions in the order. The same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the same requires to be set aside. Even though the impugned order has been passed in the year 2018, since the petitioner service has been continued, he has not realized about the conditions imposed. Only when the endorsement with regard to the seniority list has been issued vide Annexure- Z2, he has approached this Court. The endorsement at Annexure-Z2 is issued only on the basis of the order passed at Annexure-R. Therefore, conditions imposed in the impugned order dated 29.09.2018 is liable to be set aside and endorsement dated 03.12.2021 is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28214 WP No. 24300 of 2021 ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed in part. b) The endorsement dated 03.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-Z2 is hereby quashed. The conditions imposed in the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R, is also quashed. c) Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for seniority, in accordance with law. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43