Ramudu vs The Commissioner, Bellary Mahanagara Palike and Others

H. Billappa, J.—1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10/2/2009, passed by the first respondent in dispute No. 46/2001 vide Annexure-D.

By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the first respondent has cancelled the compassionate appointment of the petitioner holding that the second respondent is the son of late Peddakka and he is entitled for all the benefits.

Aggrieved by that, The petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are; the petitioner claims that his mother Smt. Peddakka was working in Bellary Maganagar Palike i.e., the first respondent. She died while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Poura Karmika on compassionate ground. The second respondent raised the dispute stating that the petitioner is not the son of late Peddakka. The first respondent issued an enquiry notice to the petitioner. It is stated, complaint was filed and police submitted a ''B'' report. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a suit in OS No. 495/01 for declaration that he is the son of late Peddakka and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the first respondent and others from proceeding with the enquiry. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 4/3/2005 has decreed the suit of the petitioner in part declaring that the petitioner is the son of late Peddakka and younger brother of the second respondent and the relief of permanent injunction has been rejected.

It is stated, the first respondent acting upon the judgment of the Civil Court granted financial benefits. Thereafter, the officer of the first respondent changed and one more enquiry notice was issued. It was challenged by the petitioner in WP No. 19926/2007. This Court by its order dated 20/11/2008 has dismissed the said writ petition. The petitioner has preferred writ appeal in WA No. 6093/2009. The first respondent was informed about the pendency of the writ appeal. The petitioner requested for some time. However, without recording any evidence, the first respondent has passed the impugned order at vide Annexure-D canceling the compassionate appointment of the petitioner holding that the second respondent is the son of late Peddakka and he is entitled for all the benefits. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the first respondent without holding any enquiry and misreading the material on record has passed the impugned order cancelling the compassionate appointment of the petitioner and holding that the second respondent is entitled for all the benefits. Further, he submitted that the order passed in WP No. 19926/07 was challenged in writ appeal No. 6093/2009. It was brought to the notice of the first respondent. In spite of that, the first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order without holding any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that there is a decree in favour of the petitioner passed in OS No. 495/2001 declaring that the petitioner is the son of late Smt. Peddakka. The first respondent has consciously misread the decreed passed in O.S. No. 495/2001. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned order. Further, he submitted that the impugned order has been passed considering the material on record and therefore, it does not call for interference.

The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. She also submitted that the Trial Court has decreed the suit partly and the relief of injunction has been rejected. In W.P. No. 19926/2007, this Court has observed that the decree of the Civil Court does not come in the way of the first respondent proceedings with the enquiry. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, he has not participated in the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer after considering the materials on record has held that the petitioner is not the son of late Peddakka, but he is the son of one Ramaiah and Marekka. The second respondent is the son of late Peddakka and he is entitled for all the benefits. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is; whether the impugned order at Annexure-D calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground after the death of late Smt. Peddakka is not in dispute. The second respondent has raised dispute stating that the petitioner is not the son of late Peddakka and he is the son of one Ramaiah and Marekka and he is not entitled for any benefit. Enquiry has been initiated by the first respondent in dispute No. 46/2001. The petitioner has approached the Civil Court in OS No. 495/2001 for declaration that he is the son of late Peddakka and for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent and others from proceeding with the enquiry proceedings. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 4/3/2005 has decreed the suit in part declaring that the petitioner is the son of late Peddakka and younger brother of the second respondent. However, the relief of permanent injunction has been rejected. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings have been continued. The petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceedings in WP No. 19926/2007. This Court has dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 20/11/2008 holding that the decree of the Civil Court does not come in the way of the authorities proceedings with the enquiry. The impugned order shows that that the petitioner has not actively participated in the enquiry. Neither the petitioner nor the second respondent have adduced any evidence. The first respondent considering the material on record has passed the impugned order at Annexure-D, canceling the compassionate appointment of the petitioner and holding that the second respondent is the son of late Peddakka and he is entitled for all the benefits. It is observed that the record indicates that the petitioner is the son of one Ramaiah and Marekka and not the son of Peddakka. It is the second respondent who is the son of the late Peddakka. It is also observed that the documents produced by the petitioner are false and fabricated documents.

A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that neither the petitioner nor the second respondent have adduced any evidence. Further, the petitioner has not actively participated in the enquiry proceedings. The first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the material on record. While doing so, the first respondent has observed that the entire proceedings in OS No. 495/2001 will not help the petitioner without making active participation in the enquiry. Though the first respondent has considered rejection of the suit for the relief of injunction, he has not considered the effect of the decree declaring the petitioner as the son of late Peddakka. Further, in para 8 of the impugned order the first respondent has observed that it is evident from the record that the petitioner is the son of one Ramaiah and Marekka and not the son of Peddakka. The decree passed in OS No. 495/2001 declares the petitioner as the son of late Peddakka and younger brother of the second respondent. It is clear, the impugned order has been passed without recording any evidence and without properly considering the material on record, particularly, the decree passed in OS No. 495/2001. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 10/2/2009, vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to reconsider the same by giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. Keeping in view that the matter is pending since long time, the first respondent is directed to consider the matter within the outer limit of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the first respondent on 1/2/2016.