Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S.K. Shankarappa, was appointed as a Waterman in Shettikere Gram Panchayath on 02.04.1998 and later assigned additional work as Bill Collector from 05.02.2001. Due to alleged omissions and commissions, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The first respondent, Panchayath Development Officer, passed an order dated 07.07.2014 removing him from service. The petitioner appealed to the second respondent, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, who affirmed the removal by order dated 11.09.2017. A subsequent order dated 22.05.2018 was also issued. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the enquiry officer was not appointed by the competent authority as required under Section 5 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The respondents were served but remained unrepresented. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, examined the records and found that the enquiry was conducted by an officer not appointed by the competent authority, rendering the entire disciplinary proceedings invalid. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages, as the petitioner had not worked during the period of removal. The court also granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted, in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Enquiry Officer Appointment - Section 5 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The petitioner, a Waterman, was removed from service based on an enquiry conducted by an officer not appointed by the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act. The court held that the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated as the enquiry officer lacked jurisdiction, and the orders of removal and appellate affirmation were quashed. (Paras 3-5) B) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Violation of Principles - Articles 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India - The court found that the removal order was passed without proper enquiry and in violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal from service and the appellate order affirming it are valid when the enquiry officer was not appointed by the competent authority under Section 5 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 07.07.2014, 11.09.2017, and 22.05.2018, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Enquiry officer appointment
- Section 5 Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- Removal from service
- Writ jurisdiction
