D. Bheem Rao vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) and Another

K.B. Siddappa, J.—In this Writ Petition the petitioner prays to set-aside the order dated 9-11-1987 passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No. 726/K1 /Pis/87 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice. He also prayed for costs.

The brief facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows;-

The petitioner was appointed as a Karobari in the Office of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1974. He stated that he worked without any blemish ever since then, till the date of the impugned order. At the time of dismissal, he was working on a fixed salary of Rs. 350/-per month.

The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was involved in some financial irregularities. Therefore, proceedings u/s 50(9) of the A.P. Grama Panchayats Act were initiated. As against that, the Sarpanch filed W.P. No. 17637/87 challenging the notification issued suspending him. This Court in W.P.M.P.No. 23417/87 suspended the operation of the notification suspending the Sarpanch.

It seems subsequently the Sarpanch was found guilty of misappropriation and he was removed from the post.

Now, as a consequence of the action taken against the Sarpanch, the petitioner is removed from service with immediate effect by the impugned order dated 9-11-1987 passed by the 1st respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is a temporary employee he cannot be removed from service in a way of punishment. The impugned order reads as follows:

"The Divisional Panchayat Officer, has further reported that the Karobari Sri. D. Bheemrao who is the son of the Sarpanch was also involved in the above serious and grave irregularities".

This casts stigma on the petitioner. Before passing the impugned order in a way of punishment, the authorities ought to have issued notice and conducted enquiry after framing the charges. No such thing is done in this case. Therefore, the order in question cannot be sustained.

I entirely agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner is a temporary employee working on a fixed salary of Rs. 350/- per month. He can be removed from service without assigning any reasons when his services were no longer required and when a permanent incumbent was to be appointed. The authority can remove the petitioner without assigning any reasons. In this case, no such grounds are made as basis for removal. As indicated above, the petitioner was removed on the allegation that he aided and abetted the Sarpanch who is the father of the petitioner in committing the irregularities. This certainly casts stigma on the petitioner when he is removed. The authorities cannot resort to this, simple procedure and oust a temporary servant after making allegations. It is open for them to frame charges and conduct enquiry. If the petitioner is found guilty he can be proceeded with according to Rules. However, as the things stand as on today, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with costs.