Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Single Judge. The appellant was appointed as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator in Kakhandaki Gram Panchayat in 2015 without prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 14.09.2018 cancelling all resolutions passed during 2015-16 to 2018, including appointments of respondents 6 to 9, among whom was the appellant. Despite this resolution, the Panchayat Development Officer continued to pay salary to these employees. Smt. Indira Bai, the then President and Member of the Gram Panchayat, filed Writ Petition No.226977/2020 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to consider representations dated 26.08.2020 and 01.10.2020. The learned Single Judge disposed of that writ petition on 23.12.2020, directing the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat to consider the representations and take action within two months. Pursuant to this direction, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order dated 18.06.2021 removing the appellant and eight other persons from service. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.201579/2021, which was clubbed with two other writ petitions and dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.09.2024. Hence the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The core legal issues were whether the Chief Executive Officer had jurisdiction to terminate the appellant, whether the resolution dated 14.09.2018 automatically terminated the appellant's service, whether the Government circular dated 23.07.2019 entitled the appellant to continuation, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. The appellant contended that only the Gram Panchayat is empowered under Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to remove an employee, and the Chief Executive Officer acted without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the cancellation resolution did not amount to a valid termination, no notice was given to the appellant, and the cause of action arose only after the Chief Executive Officer's order. The appellant further relied on circular dated 23.07.2019, which directed Chief Executive Officers to grant post facto approval to earlier appointments. The respondents argued that the learned Single Judge correctly considered Section 113 and the admitted lack of prior approval, and that no infirmity existed. The Principal Secretary filed an affidavit stating that the appellant's appointment was not against a vacant post and he did not satisfy condition No.6 of the circular. The Division Bench examined Section 113(3) and held that only the Gram Panchayat is competent to remove its employees, and the Chief Executive Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the termination order. It further observed that the earlier writ petition only directed consideration of representations, not termination; at most the Chief Executive Officer could have directed the Panchayat Development Officer not to pay salary. The Court noted that a mere resolution cancelling earlier resolutions cannot be deemed a termination in accordance with law. Although the circular was considered, the appellant's eligibility was not established due to non-fulfilment of conditions. The Court concluded that the impugned order dated 18.06.2021 was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, thereby allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Gram Panchayat Employee Termination - Jurisdiction of Chief Executive Officer - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Section 113(3) - The Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat passed an order dated 18.06.2021 removing the appellant from service of the Gram Panchayat. The Court held that Section 113(3) empowers only the Gram Panchayat to remove or dismiss an employee appointed by it, and the Chief Executive Officer is not empowered to pass such an order. Held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside (Paras 7, 13, 15). B) Service Law - Effect of Resolution Cancelling Earlier Resolutions - Automatic Termination - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Section 113 - The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 14.09.2018 cancelling all earlier resolutions from 2015-2018, including appointments of respondents 6 to 9. The Court observed that mere cancellation of resolutions cannot be deemed termination in accordance with law, especially when salary continued and no individual notice was given to the appellant. Held that the appellant's service was not validly terminated by the resolution alone (Paras 4, 5, 16). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Direction in Prior Writ Petition - Consideration of Representation vs Termination - Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Section 4 - The earlier writ petition sought a writ of mandamus to consider representations dated 26.08.2020 and 01.10.2020. The learned Single Judge directed the Chief Executive Officer to consider the representations and take action. The Court held that this direction did not authorize termination of services; at most the Chief Executive Officer could direct the Panchayat Development Officer not to pay salary. Held that the Chief Executive Officer exceeded the scope of the court's order by terminating the appellant (Paras 14-15). D) Service Law - Government Circular for Post Facto Approval - Eligibility Conditions - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Section 113 - The appellant relied on circular dated 23.07.2019 directing Chief Executive Officers to grant post facto approval to earlier appointments. The Principal Secretary's affidavit stated that the appellant's appointment was not against a vacant post and he did not satisfy condition No.6 of the circular. The Court noted the Chief Executive Officer failed to consider the circular, but the jurisdictional defect rendered the termination invalid. Held that the appellant's claim for continuation under the circular was not established due to non-fulfilment of conditions (Paras 8, 9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat had jurisdiction to terminate the appellant's service as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator; whether the Gram Panchayat's resolution dated 14.09.2018 automatically terminated the appellant's appointment; whether the Government circular dated 23.07.2019 entitled the appellant to continuation; whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.
Final Decision
The Division Bench held that the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat acted without jurisdiction in passing the order dated 18.06.2021 terminating the appellant's service, as Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 empowers only the Gram Panchayat to remove its employees. The Court further held that the earlier writ petition direction only required consideration of representations and did not authorize termination; at most the Chief Executive Officer could have directed the Panchayat Development Officer not to pay salary. The impugned order was liable to be set aside and the writ appeal was allowed.
Law Points
- Gram Panchayat alone is competent to remove its employees under Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- a resolution cancelling earlier resolutions does not automatically terminate employment without due process
- writ court direction to consider representation does not authorize termination
- post facto approval circular requires fulfilment of conditions
