- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35924 WP No. 13311 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13311 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. SHESHADRI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR HAROHALLI TOWN PANCHAYAT R/AT. GANALUDODI, HAROHALLI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562112 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL REP BY ITS DIRECTOR 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARIAH TOWERS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-56 001. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAMANGARA REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA- 562159. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER HAROHALLI TOWN PANCHAYAT HAROHALLI, HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562112 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS R, AGA FOR R1: SRI A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3: R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35924 WP No. 13311 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. NA.SA.RA/SIBBANDI/C.R.58/2024-25 DATED. 11.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-2 MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TERMINATION PASSED IN ORDER BEARING NO. PA.PAN.HA/CE.SHA/CE.R/18/2024-25 DATED: 10.02.2025 (ANNEXURE-Q) PASSED BY THE R-3 CHIEF OFFICER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 into question the impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2, whereby it was stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 3(1)(c)(xi) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) does not fall within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2- Ramanagara Municipal Commissioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a temporary employee of respondent No.3-Town Panchayat. While she was in service, she was terminated by respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35924 WP No. 13311 of 2025 appeal before respondent No.2 under Rule 3(1)(c)(xi) of the Rules. Respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2025 vide Annexure-A, holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner does not come within jurisdiction and is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Officer has the power to terminate the service of an employee of respondent No.3- Town Panchayat under Section 342(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Under Rule 3(1)(c)(xi) of the Rules, an appeal lies to the Municipal Commissioner. Since respondent No.3-Town Panchayat falls within Ramanagara District, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2-Municipal Commissioner. Respondent No.2 passed an impugned endorsement stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner does not fall within the jurisdiction of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35924 WP No. 13311 of 2025 respondent No.2. Hence, he sought allowance of the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No.3. The City Municipal Council, Ramanagara is an independent local body. The appeal against the order passed by the Chief Officer, Town Panchayat is not maintainable to the Municipal Commissioner of the City Municipal Council. He further submitted that both the City Municipal Council and the Chief Officer are the same cadre and no appeal is maintainable before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has rightly issued an endorsement. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers. 6. The petitioner was a temporary employee of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, by order dated 10.02.2025 vide Annexure-Q, terminated the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35924 WP No. 13311 of 2025 from the service. The power traceable to the Chief Officer to terminate the services of the employees is under Section 342(1)(c) of the Act. 7. By reading of Section 342 of the Municipalities Act and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1967, it is clear that no appeal under Section 342(1)(c) of the Act lies against the order passed by respondent No.3-Chief Officer of the Town Panchayat, Harohalli to the Municipal Commissioner, Ramanagara. Therefore, the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is just and reasonable. 8. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3