Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2109 (KAR)

C. Muniraju v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-22

ABHAY S.OKA, ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2020
JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, C.J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an ex-Member of the second respondent Anneswara Gram Panchayat. Fifth respondent is an employee of the second respondent. 3. By Notification/communication dated 25th June 2020, at Annexure-B issued by the President of the second respondent, fifth respondent was ordered to be kept under suspension. It is stated in Annexure-B that the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru Rural and the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, Devanahalli and the Panchayat Development Officer of the second respondent are requested to take legal action against the fifth respondent on account of the illegalities committed by her. 4. What is under challenge is the order dated 28th August, 2020 (Annexure-C) passed by the third respondent - Administrative Officer of the second respondent. By the said order, he has withdrawn the order of suspension issued under Section 62-D of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 dated 25th June, 2020. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Administrative Officer of the second respondent is powerless to revoke the suspension of the fifth respondent. He invited our attention to the serious allegations made against the fifth respondent. 6. The only prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 28th August 2020, by which order of suspension passed against the fifth respondent has been withdrawn. The said order itself records that the order of suspension was passed pending Disciplinary inquiry. There is nothing placed on record to show that the proposal for holding Disciplinary inquiry against the fifth respondent has been dropped. In any case, the petitioner is not seeking any direction in that behalf. 7. In paragraph 34 of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others,2019 9 SCC 655 , the Apex Court has held thus: 34. From the discussion and analysis, the following principles emerge:- (a) Except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable in service matters. (b) For issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. From the discussion and analysis, the following principles emerge:- (a) Except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable in service matters. (b) For issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (c) Suitability or otherwise of a candidate for appointment to a post in Government service is the function of the Appointing Authority and not of the Court unless the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions/rules. (underline supplied) 8. In view of what is held by the Apex Court, this writ petition, which is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, cannot be entertained. 9. If according to the case of the petitioner, the third respondent - Administrator Officer of the second respondent has exercised a power which is not vested in him, it is always open for the petitioner to make a complaint to the Superior Officers for taking action against him. However, this Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected.