IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE mm my 09* EDECEMBER, 2':§§)e, "' '
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICf3)'.N.E§tIi§iAI§*"-
WRIT PE'l'¥'I'ION No,_9615i.2(}{)6 '
ANL'v--__ ,_
WRIT PETITIQN No.792i8;_:20{)6 (S--~RES}"
IN WRIT PETYFION N0.961Sl
BETWEEN:
DR. BASA"VA.E?AJ,~.MBi3:S .Mi3,Q~A' .
s/0 VEERATAYYA» KOI3?:LIW_AD3s§ATH_
A/A; 53YvEARs,0cc'wN1'L» -- -
R/A No.43€-f3,..SEC'I'GR7Nc5.v3.,
SHIVBASAVANAGARV, BELGAUM'.
- -. PETITIONER
. (BY gm, A,G.MULwADI.i¥iA.?'H, ADV.)
",§.;fa3i§:*» _
1. LENGAYAT EDUCATION
S€)_CIE'I"Y, F<'}_EY I'I'$ CHIQRMAN.
BGi'SRI)._VOFvfi;§ANaGEMENT
KLE '..€«<I)€3JE'I'Y, COLLEGE RGAIJ,
'' BELGAUM.
' KAIiiiATAXA LINGAYA'? EDUCATION
'SOCIETY, R/BY ITS SECRETARY
BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,
' V' KLE SOCIETY, COLLEGE ROAD,
»gam):[_:
BELGAUM.
...RESPONDEl'i'§'_$~
(BY SRI.B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADV.) I --
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES AND<2fi'7 "': I'
OF THE CONSTITUTION SF INDIA PRAYING TO EIODIFY TH _
EORDER DATED I9.4.2{}O6 VIBE ANNE}{"A%IN Efi;§9I'N<3;.II'/.2092 IN I
SOFAR AS THE MATFER IS RE2\§A1f-i"DED'«'i'O-«A R.ESPONDE'NT "
MANAGEMENI' AND DIRECT TI-IE RESPONDEA. .
THE PE'§'IO'I'NER WITH ALL BACK WAGE3 AHD ETC.' " . «.
IN wrzrr Pgrrrlow No.792312G4j§--..
BETWEEN: I I A
1. KARNATAKA LINGAYAT E:'I§"1IC!I'I'I<3E~3I'. " 1
S£I)CIE'I*Y,COLLEGE R0A{J,_5'
BELGAUNLSQO 001,2/B1;;_Ts.Vc:v§AI12MAN. ; u
grams 0?' MANAGEMEM - ~
KARNATAKA'LINGi';?AT"§Jl}{JCA'TIQ3}!v
SOCIETY,COVL;LEGEi.RC1AI3',_ .
BELGAUM.:"390 '(m~.IA1:a;,m'=.I;'z':'3 SECRETARY
. . ...PE'I'ITIONERS
{BY sRI.§3.c.Vv9RABHA--KA'R, ADV.)
V.'--DR;.II3.%SAVAR;x.;IA§"" 1%
M435/3,..s»2:<:rcVvs2V:sao.3,
SHIVAEASAVAINMSAR, samwm.
' ._ . . L' ' mzzspoxnsm
I I . ,_ ''53? SR}. ~~.aIG.MULwADIMATH, ADV.)
_ I "i'~.!-IIS WRIT PE'I"I'I'ION IS FILED UNQER ARTICLES 226
ANI3"-S227 OF 'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ff«___"QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.4.2006 PASED BY THE
I 'EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND PRL. DISTRICT
NT ':50 REm':~:*IfAfI'E;1;_AI
iv
AND ETC.
JUDGE, BELGAUM IN EAT APPEAL No.1/2002 VIBE ANX'-{N.'
THESE- PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR F1NAL'A4§}§"Ep3:2i;N<_§" "
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE T HE FOLLOWING:
--(--'----'3--'5~)----E-'1"3~ .. _ % . ._
Writ Petition No.792a/aotisfis p1'é.i'i:1:'__n:d
the order passed by thc
1 /2902. Writ Petition No.96 'éLV1$'§<;3:'f.-rcfexxficd by the
Iespondent in the 'abgve the very
same order. 1'0; ufi-'f"(::onvenicn&, the
matters are disposed of by
this comx:ion'~oIdsr.' "'-~ h'
'V 'The afc rcfcnm to as may are referred to
".Ipeft§rza Appellate Tribunal.
Basavaraj the petitioacr before the Tribunal
H K ; as a Lecturer in Anacsthcsiologr on
4'%'«1J30gwi'%'19ao by the respondents before the 'I'ribuna1. He
VT promoted as the Assistant Professor on 01/01/1991.
“VH6 was promotecl as Associate Professor on 01/01/1997.
On the ground that in spite of giving an undertaking not it<3T
practice and was paid Rs.13,0DO/-~ per month "
practicing allowances, when the petitioner H
private: jpzactice, he was served with a
advising bin: not to imilflge in
the same, on 16/10] 21999 the
the terms and conditions.' when aishow
cause nofice was issued v"'4'7:).n.22/O5] 2001
when the was not
satisfactory, 3 was-." an enquiry
committee. was' 23/07/2001 and
06/08] 2&1 2 'sittings and the enquiry
committee sabgnmea 14/03/2001 hoiding that
_ _the waé: «gr the charges lsevnicd against him.
n was dism1s' scd fiom the aervicc on
06,'. the order of disfimma], an appeal
V VA came in fin' Before the Educational Appcliate Tribunal in
_1\_'lo..1','*2{)02. By an arder dated 03/04/2003, the
heki that the domestic enquiry conductzd is not fair
'angij proper and therefore it aflowed the appeal and directed
\./
the management to reinstate the petitioner along withkall
consequential benefits. Aggnwed by the said A.
m9P0I1de1:3,tS Preferred a writ Pfitition before? M
W.P. 119.4533?-45333/2003. The "Wait
contest came to be allowed
reinstatement passed. by the 'the,
remitted back to the 'n~nnma_1 an%9ppMo£nm.ityi}o the
ncsponcients to prove the independent
evidence afitsh 1;;e:2;m:% by the said
order, mspongefits agpggélkémch came to be
dismissed, single Judge.
Subsequééntigf,’ up the matter. The
respondcnt锑*:1§1<£t;c&i_V. The petitioner also adduced
V ::viden.c_§¢':.'V ' Urafoi-t.1,V1_;i::zia'tte13fir, the Tribunal without properly
scope of enquiry proceeded ta pass thc
' g aside the ozder of disfi dated
_O6/12',12G§}1 remitted the matter back to the respondent
.4 H I a to constitute a new E:1qu1ry' ®
' of membcm who are not biased with the petitioner
who have no direct or intiixect concern with the
\/A
respondent management Further it was dimctcd that
new enquiry Committee :30 constituted shall give '4 3
to both the sides afresh and hold an enquiry. It * H
directed to consladcr penalty, if any, on {$6
of changes in accordanée with the
the respondent management aid $._iXV :i'I#§flt};lS
was stipuiatcd to complgtugthc it'-,sp0'1:§1dents
being aggrieved by the the order of
dismissal has gmsgmd % The
petitioner £116 order where a
dissection has prefarmd Writ
Petition .. '
.. 'V I haaie ihe learned counsel for the parties.
imP'1%3'-led order, it is ckar that the
éiknot understood the scope of the oxdcr of
" gfémad 14.1313. aiso its functions. Earlier, the Tribunal sat
flit: finding of m.is~com:1uct based on the enquiry report
ground that the domestic enquiry was not Ecgal and
proper. The said finding of the Tribunal stands
the learned Single Judge as well by the Division g;;ff~ "
this Court, however reserving liberty to the T' "
challenge the same in the event of
against them. Thcrcfom, thcre d9_vas 1:gQ £1_#CCSS.1fT.f,f :for'~
Tribunal to go into the matter if
instant case, as is clear as
under: VA ' ' V'
"r-:ow:_ to the
above in the said
Writ.' "p3ti.t:;fO:!a%: :':'3£§1'd is requimd to
cozxifiigieré' by the respondent
uadcf ihtj; is in accordance with
justice: and the appellant
such opportunity to defend himseif
" . V"i11«tEi'e;«a51_iv<3;11c:;'a.*iic etiquiry."
A. , Themfom, it is obvious, there is no proper
appiicanien of mind by the Tribunal After such remand, thf:
parties have adduced evidence. From appreciation of the
L3/'
said evidence on record including the evidence before
Enquiry Ofieer, What the Trmunal had to decide 1% ,,
the misconduct alieged against the petitioner
or not. If the misconduct is pmved thexjftige
ts have gone into the question id
was proportionate to the
thereafter it should have gone "L§;;1iesj;io1;.1"a7vh::st the
benefits to which the pefifieeer die; Instead of
doing that, unfommdmly, the
"it has uedzdistzitutjon of the
Enquiry is illega}. and
improper. afier remand shows the
improper censizimnng' "eixqixi fcommittee and its report
under Pal and not in accordance with the
the petitioner."
” .?7;V rg¢.»¢:m, it is obvious that the Tribune}. has not
_ deeixieduu theegthiesfion whether the evidence adduced for the
time befoxe the Tribuzual, the miscoonduct “Q proved or _
8. In that View of the matter, the impugned
order cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the following
order”.
9. Both the Writ Pefitions are allowed. The ~
impuged older is hereby set aside. The ‘V %
remitted back to the ‘i’n’bunal to do V
a) To need the pleadings in the = n
issue to the effect Whcther»fl::t£~V..respen.deats’bpi*éx§e’
the alleged misconduct u
then decide the said issue of cvideénée,
adduced by both tiie after
documentary
evidence 4′ _:q1.1esfion whether the
alleged. or not from the
af9¥E5?id”ii13et_Q1*ie€1; s
” . is, m1sco’ nduct ‘m not proved
Vt hcn: drag:-eeordjsmissai is liabhe to be set aside
7′ him and decide what are the
eonsegucaritiax benefits to which he is entitled to;
” *i’f_the’ finding of misconéuct is proved then the
‘ Tribunal has to go into the question whether the
punishment of dismissal imposed on the
\a/
:10:
petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of
misconduct held to bt: proved and if it is of the
opinion that it is not proportionate, it is at liberty
to impose such lesser punishment; and deciV;§§–
What are the benefits to which 1:116 P€titio13~’-‘§ri~i$ «
entitled to.
Both the parties are to b8fO7I.¥€”.’Afl’,:1€ ‘ n K
Education Appellate Tribunal 0II. ‘V9E?j[‘~0}’l ‘V S
Tribunal is directed to take. V <\;?$11._ Flay
basis and shall dispose of; before:
3 1/01/2009. High back the records to flak; 3 Sd/--v Judge 4»