[Intra-Court Appeal] Single Bench Not A Court Subordinate To Division Bench, Matter Decided On Merits Can't Be Remitted Back: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that in an intra-court appeal, the division bench of the high court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot remit a matter back to the single judge bench if it has been decided on merits. A single judge bench is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the high court, it added.

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a service dispute already decided by him on merits was once again placed before the single bench, after the Division bench allowed the appeal against the order and restored the file to the single bench.

Justice Nagaprasanna said, “Remand, in the normal circumstances, except those considered by the Full Bench, even when the issue is decided on merit, is to a court subordinate which the learned single Judge is not.”

The petitioner was terminated from the service of  Accountant in the District Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot for unauthorised absence, allegedly blocking various projects initiated by the Municipal Council. The single judge bench vide its order dated 15-09-2021 had directed her reinstatement with 50% of backwages. The order was challenged by the State in Writ Appeal and the Division Bench while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

Justice Nagaprasanna said the State could have sought relief before the Division Bench and not sought a remand to the single Judge bench "which is not a Court subordinate to the Division Bench, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." Nonetheless, since the matter was placed before his bench, he proceeded to consider the case "yet again".

The petitioner argued that merely because she was a temporary employee, it is no law that on allegations she could be terminated without holding any inquiry.

The State on the other hand contended that in appeal, all that it wanted was liberty to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate orders.

The single bench noted that on the score of some additional documents that were filed in appeal, the Division Bench set aside its order and remitted the matter back for consideration afresh. “The order of the co-ordinate Bench was passed on merits of the matter. Once having passed the order on merits of the matter, the Division Bench has to consider the matter on its merits. The application filed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 also could have merited consideration at the hands of the Division Bench,” it said.

“All that the State wanted was moulding of relief insofar as holding of inquiry is concerned. This Court is of the respectful view that the Division Bench could have moulded the relief itself and not remitted the matter back to the learned single Judge,” it added.

Considering the issue on merits, the bench noted that petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service at the time when she was issued a show cause notice. Therefore, though she was not a permanent employee, she had acquired a "quasi permanent status". It said that if termination is on allegations, even to a temporary employee, an inquiry in the least will have to be conducted, failure of which, would become violative of the principles of natural justice.

“If the content of the order of termination is stigmatic, such stigma to be effaced and the employee must have the opportunity to defend such action.”

Thus it directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service with 50% backwages. Further, it permitted the respondent-State to hold an enquiry on the aforesaid allegation, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner.

Appearance: Advocate Vinay S.Koujalagi, for the petitioner.

AGA V.S. Kalasurmath, for respondents 1 and 3.

Advocate Prakash Hosamane, for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

Case Title: Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 47144 OF 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order