DEVENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 6, Sri Subhash Mallapur learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 remained absent in spite of service of notice on them.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that, a person by name Gurappa and others have lodged a complaint to Lokayukta against the petitioner who was working as a Bill Collector in Suntanur Gram Panchayat during the year 2013. The said complaint was dated 24.06.2013 addressed to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Gulbarga, wherein various allegations have been made against the petitioner that, he is not doing his work properly and he was very rude, he has been threatening other officers and members of the Gram Panchayat of Suntanur and he has also collecting money from the people of the village under guise of recovery of taxes of the houses and not depositing the said amount and etc. It is also alleged that, he has assaulted several members of the Gram Panchayat. Further, the said complaint was also addressed to Hon'ble Lokayukta. On the basis of which, the Lokayukta office registered a case in No.Compt/Uplok/GLB-1690/2013/DRE-3 dated 05.08.2016. After providing opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed his objections, denying all allegations made against him dated 25.02.2014 as per Annexure-B, the Lokayukta has also called for the report from CEO, ZP, Gulbarga and PDO of that Gram Panchayat. After receiving the report from CEO, ZP, and considering the objection statement, the Lokayukta has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the petitioner. Therefore, vide Annexure-D dated 05.08.2016, the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta has recommended the competent authority to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act for his removal from the post of Bill Collector. On the basis of said recommendation, the Government has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-H, which is dated 02.11.2016 removing the Bill Collector i.e. the petitioner from the service and also submitted a report to the Lokayukta.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that no enquiry has been held as contemplated under the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short 'KCS Rules) though the petitioner is a public servant and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to crossexamine on the allegations made against him in the complaint. Further, no opportunity was given to him to produce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his objections statement. Without following any procedure and without even following the principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed by the Government and the order was communicated to the petitioner through the Under Secretary to the Government as per Annexure-H.