SRI R.N.A. BRITIO versus THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 01-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SRI R.N.A. BRITIO 
v. 
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 9RS. 
MAY 1, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Kamataka Panchayats (Secretaries) (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 
1970. 
Administrative Law-Administrative Tribunals Act 1985--Section 
c 15(1)(b). 
Kamataka Village and Local Boards Act, 1959-Sections 80(2), 210(!). 
Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal to entertain a petition relating 
to tennination of a person working in a Panchayat as secretary-Whether he 
D is a State Government servant-Held : He is a person appointed to a civil 
post and is a civil servant of the State-Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain 
petition challenging his tennination. 
The services of the Appellant who was working as secretary of the 
Bajpe Panchayat which was established under the Kamataka Village and 
E Local Boards Act, 1959 was terminated by a 'memo' dated November 4, 
1986. He challenged the termination before the Kamataka Administrative 
Tribunal. The Tribunal did not admit the petition on the ground that it did 
not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the petitioner was not 
in the civil service of the State or in a civil post under the State within the 
F 
meaning of clause (b) ofsub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act. 
Review application was also rejected on the same grounds. 
While it was contended before this court by the Appellant that a 
secretary of a Pancbayat established under the Act and dealing witJt the 
affairs of the local authority was a government servant and the Tribunal 
G 
bad to entertain bis petition challenging bis termination, this was contested 
by the State. 
Allowing the Appeal and remanding the matter, this court 
HELD : 1.The Tribunal fell into a patent error in rejecting the review 
H application of the Appellant filed before it on the ground that it had no 
932 
I 
' , 
.. ! 
R.N.A BRITTO v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
933 
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Panchayat secretaries under the Kar- A 
nataka Village and Local Boards Act, 1959 (Act) are State Government 
servants. If that be so, they are persons who are appointed in the civil 
service of the State or civil post under the State within the meaning of 
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act, as would 
enable them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for redressal of their B 
redressal of their grievances in relation to any service matter concerning 
them. [942-B, 941-H, 942-A) 
2. The provisions in the Act, clearly show that several functions which 
were required to be performed by the State are entrusted to the Panchayats. 
They also show that the properties yested in the Panchayats and the funds C 
of the Panchayat are that of the Government and those collected by way of 
tax or fee by exercising the power of taxation vested in the Panchayat by the 
Government. Above all, the provisions in the Act make it abundantly clear 
that the Pan cha ya ts have to function under the ultimate control of the State 
Government. When it comes to the secretaries of the Panchayats appointed 
under the Act, their selection for appointment, their termination from D 
service, their liability for transfer and all other conditions of their services 
are as provided for under the rules made under the Act or other rules made 
under Article 309 of the Constitution in respect of services of the State 
Government servants. When sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act states 
that subject to the provisions oHhe rules made under the proviso of Article E 
309 of the Constitution, the qualifications, powers, duties, remuneration 
and conditions of service including disciplinary matters of such secretary 
shall be such as may be prescribed, it leaves no room for doubt that the 
secretaries of Panchayats are Government servants, like other Government 
servants, who are subjected to the rules to be made under the proviso to 
Article 309 of the Constitution as regards their service conditions. 
F 
[941-C to GI 
State of Assam and Ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, [1967) 1 SCR 
679 and State of Gujarat and Another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and 
Others, [1983) 2 sec 330, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 718 of 
1993. 
G 
From the Order dated 22nd January, 1992 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Review Application No. 199 of 1990. H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
M. Veerappa for the Respondent.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.