AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per K.V. Narayanaraju, M.-This petition under S. 207 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act is, directed against the order dated 2-3-1982 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dismissing revision petition VPC RP 11/81-82 against the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in VPC R. 280/81-82 dated 5-10-1981 asking the Tahsildar, Hoskote to take over all documents of Bidarahalli Panchayat from the present petitioner who was holding the same without authority, and make them over to the previous secretary. The revision petition also purports to challenge another order dated 29-3-1982 rejecting the petition for restoration of the petition already dismissed for default.
The petitioner has contended inter alia that the learned Divisional Commissioner erred in law in dismissing the revision petition and also the petition for restoration; that principles of natural justice have been violated etc.
The counsel for the petitioner was heard at length on the maintainability of the revision petition questioning the correctness of a mere order directing the petitioner who was once working as Secretary of the Panchayat to hand over the documents. He contended that the petitioner was appointed as secretary under S. 80 of the Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act and that he could not have been asked to hand over charge of the documents without being removed from office. It was his contention that the order directing handing over documents was an order passed under the Panchayats and Local Boards Act and therefore the proceedings were capable of being corrected by way of revision either by the Divisional Commissioner or this Tribunal under S. 207 of the Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act.
We are of the opinion that matters such as this cannot be the subject matter of either an appeal or revision under the Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act. S. 80 of the Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act no doubt states that every panchayat shall have a secretary who shall be appointed by the Commissioner in accordance with such Rules prescribed. It is more important to notice that sub-section (2) of S. 80 lays down that subject to the provisions of the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the qualifications, powers, duties, remuneration and conditions of service including disciplinary matters of such secretaries shall be such as may be prescribed. That leaves no doubt whatsoever that any matter which deals with or affects the conditions of service of a secretary has to be dealt with in accordance with the Rules that may be framed, which Rules, themselves are to be subject to the Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
Such a position is further made clear by the Karnataka Panchayaths (Secretaries) Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1970. Rules 9 and 10 thereof declare that except in respect of matters for which provision is made in these Rules, the provisions of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 shall be applicable; and that the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the Mysore Civil Services Conduct Rules and other Rules for the time being in force regulating the conditions of services of Government servants made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules shall be applicable.
This provision makes it abundantly clear that the Secretary cannot agitate any question pertaining to his appointment or condition of service in proceedings under the Village Panchayaths Act. He may certainly do so under the Rules framed by Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Such Rules include the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules. We may also state that an order such as the one passed by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner shall hand over the documents with him is not an order under the provisions of the Village Panchayaths Act. It may be an order in exercise of the disciplinary control which an employer enjoys. Further it is impossible to say that such an order is contrary to law resulting in miscarriage of justice so as to warrant the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 207 of the Village Panchayaths and Local Boards Act.
For the foregoing reasons, though we cannot approve the action of the Divisional Commissioner in dismissing for default the revision petition and the application for restoration filed before her; we must dismiss the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot seek relief under the Village Panchayaths and Local Boards Act. Revision petition is rejected.