December 22, 2024
“The Division Bench cannot remand the matter back to the single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution”: Karnataka HC
Supreme Court

“The Division Bench cannot remand the matter back to the single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution”: Karnataka HC

Jan 15, 2024

Last Updated on January 15, 2024 by News Desk

Recently, the Karnataka High Court while hearing an intra-court appeal, observed that the single bench is not subordinate to the division bench of the high court and that it cannot remand the matter back to the single Judge in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a matter 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.

the brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, Smt. Sharadha L. Dodmani was appointed as an Accountant temporarily in 2008, serving in the Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees, had previously approached the court seeking the regularization of their services. However, the petitioner received a show-cause notice on June 4, 2018, alleging unauthorised absence and obstruction of various projects. Despite submitting a detailed reply on June 13, 2018, the petitioner’s services were terminated without any inquiry.

The single judge bench in its order dated 15-09-2021 had directed her reinstatement with 50% of back wages. The State challenged the order in Writ Appeal and the Division Bench while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

Justice Nagaprasanna  remarked, “The Division Bench could have moulded the relief itself and not remitted the matter back to the learned single Judge.He further added, “single judge bench is not court subordinate to the Division Bench, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The court also directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service with 50% back wages. Further, it permitted the respondent, state to hold an enquiry on the aforesaid allegation. 

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

Written by Shagun Behal 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.