Sri. K. Raghavappa v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28417 OF 2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. RAGHAVAPPA S/O M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT APPAKONDENAHALLI VILLAGE THIMRAVATHANAHALLI POST THAYALUR HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563136. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHARVANI P T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶2CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH KOLAR-563101.

¶3EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MULBAGILU, KOLAR-563136.

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:9587( WP(No.(28417(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., PANCHAYATH,DEVELOPMENT,OFFICER, THIMMARAUTANAHALLI,GRAMA,PANCHAYATH, THIMMARAUTANAHALLI,VILLAGE,AND,POST, THAYALUR,HOBLI,,, MULABAGILU,TALUK, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563136, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SPOORTHY,HEGDE,N,,HCGP,FOR,R1:, SRI,M,NARAYANA,REDDY,,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3,&,R4,[ABSENT], SRI,DEVARAJ,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,[ABSENT])), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, BY, , QUASHING, THE, ORDER, DATED:29.8.2016, PASSED, BY, THE, R-2, IN, NO:, Z.P., KO/CDP(5)/LDK/CR-89/2016-17,VIDE,,ANNEXURE-H,AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, , ORAL(ORDER(

¶1In, this, writ, petition,, the, petitioner, has, called, in, question, the, order, dated, 29.08.2016, passed, by, respondent, No.2-Zilla, Panchayath, vide, Annexure-H,, whereby, respondent, No.2, directed, respondent, No.3, to, remove,the,petitioner,from,the,post,of,Bill,Collector,under,

Section 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Pursuant to Annexure-H dated

29.08.2016, Panchayath has issued impugned order dated

15.09.2016 vide Annexure-K, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Clerk by respondent No.4–Panchayath Development Officer (PDO), Thimmarautanahalli Grama Panchayath, Mulabagilu Taluk, thereafter, respondent No.4 vide resolution dated 30.12.2011 appointed the petitioner as a Bill Collector and the same was approved by respondent No.2–Zilla Panchayath vide order dated 29.09.2015, produced as Annexure-B. While he was working as a Bill Collector in respondent No.4, one person by name Satish, lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta stating that the petitioner had created allotment certificate and issuing khata in respect of Sy.No.62/2 and earned money through the corruption and had misused the power. The Lokayukta, after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report under

Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government on

30.04.2016 vide Annexure-E, recommending action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said recommendation dated 30.04.2016, respondent No.4–PDO, by exercising the power under Section 113(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner and concluded the enquiry. The petitioner accepted the said penalty. Thereafter, respondent No.2–Zilla Panchayath, by the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 29.08.2016, directed respondent No.3 to remove the petitioner from service under Section 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. Based on the order at Annexure-H, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to remove the petitioner from service, pursuant to which, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order at Annexure-K dated

15.09.2016, removing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, as per the recommendation made by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, vide Annexure-E dated 30.04.2016, a direction was issued to take action against the petitioner under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. In the very same report, it was also recommended that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against Smt.K.Saritha, PDO, Thimmarautanahalli Grama Panchayath, Mulabagilu Taluk, and Sri K.V. Raghupathi, Secretary of the said Grama Panchayath under the KCS (CCA), Rules, 1966. However, no action has been initiated against the said Smt.K.Saritha and Sri K.V. Raghupathi. On the other hand, respondent No.4-PDO, by order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure-G), imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner, which was accepted by the petitioner and the proceedings were concluded. It was further argued that once action had been taken pursuant to the recommendation of the Lokayukta

and the matter had attained finality, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath had no authority to direct invocation of Section 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act to remove the petitioner from service. Hence, the impugned order at Annexure-H is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. It was also contended that respondent No.4 passed the order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure-K), dismissing the petitioner from service, solely on the basis of the directions issued by respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, vide Annexure-H. The dismissal is based on the very same allegations for which the petitioner had already been penalized. Therefore, he sought for allowing this writ petition.

¶4None appear for the respondents.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶6It is not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment as Bill Collector was approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, under Sections 112 and 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, vide Annexure-B dated

29.09.2015. While petitioner was serving in respondent No.4–Grama Panchayath, a complaint was lodged by one Sri Sathish before the Lokayukta alleging creation of grant certificate and issuing khata in respect of Sy.No.62/2 and earned the money through the corruption and had misused the power.

¶7The Lokayukta, after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report dated 30.04.2016 under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (Annexure-E), recommending that action be taken against the petitioner under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. In the same report, a recommendation was also made therein for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1966 against Smt.K.Saritha, Panchayath

Development Officer, and Sri K.V. Raghupathi, Secretary of the said Grama Panchayath.

¶8Respondent No.4, in respect of the petitioner is concerned, acted upon the Lokayukta's recommendation and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 113(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, which the petitioner accepted and the proceedings attained finality. However, no material is forthcoming to show that similar action has been initiated against the aforesaid officials, as recommended in the report.

¶9Thereafter, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, issued order dated

29.08.2016 (Annexure-H), directing removal of the petitioner from service under Section 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. Acting upon the said direction, respondent No.4 passed order dated

15.09.2016 (Annexure-K) removing the petitioner from service.

¶10In the considered view of this Court, once the competent authority had exercised its statutory power under Section 113(2) of the aforesaid Act and concluded the disciplinary proceedings by imposing a penalty, the matter had attained finality. There was no authority for the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, to again invoke Section 113 of the said Act and direct the removal of the petitioner from service. Therefore, the impugned order dated

29.08.2016 at Annexure-H is without authority of law.

¶11Further, the order of removal has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and solely on the basis of the order issued by respondent No.2. The said action amounts to double jeopardy and is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders at Annexures H and K are liable to be quashed.

¶12Further, though recommendation dated

30.04.2016 (Annexure-E) directed initiation of action

against Smt.K.Saritha, Panchayat Development Officer, and Sri K.V. Raghupathi, Secretary, Thimmaravuthanahalli Grama Panchayat, no action has been taken against them. The High Court Government Pleader has also not produced any documents to show that action has been taken pursuant to the recommendation of the Upalokayukta.

¶13Therefore, respondent No.1–Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department is required to initiate appropriate action against concerned officials who have failed to act upon the report submitted by the Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, dated 30.04.2016.

¶14Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned orders dated

29.08.2016 vide Annexure-H and 15.09.2016 vide Annexure-K, are hereby quashed.

c) Respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate action against the concerned officials, who have failed to act upon the report submitted by the Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, dated 30.04.2016.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25