THIMMANNA G. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dtd. 3/12/2021 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-Z2 and also the order dtd. 29/9/2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R only in respect of the conditions imposed.

(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 dtd. 12/6/2006 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 dtd. 30/4/2015, 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 dtd. 20/7/2015 vide Annexure-N. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 by filing an appeal under Sec. 113(4) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). By order dtd. 29/9/2018, 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 dtd. 29/9/2018 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-R and the consequent order dtd. 3/12/2021 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 Sec. 113(4) of the Act. By order dtd. 29/9/2018, 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 Sec. 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 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.