IN THE HIGH mum: OF KARNATAKA AT Bz%J§IGAL.'~f%*iV§'-J¢ . .1 if; 5' % A.
DATED THIS THE 31" DAY OF JI31.y.2m9%' " ' " W %
BEFORE
2"Hz«:HON'3LE MRJUSTICE
WRIT P.Er1:r19NN0.142s0z2@LM " --
Between:
Sri BK. Gopala__K:fisf1z;;i;' V1.;.__ _ , V
810 Sri Krishmi sasuy. '
Aged about 46*yea:s', . % _ ._
Second Division'AssistatKL_ _
(Under orders ofCom;mlsoty R. '
BSV Arts and _ConuIie:cé Coilegc,
FQrVWonrer.«,{Vi'ia3:ar1agar', A V
We No.9,
Baiigaiofe-5 903 __
Petitioner.
- sri
f Tixe Conrntnitwe,
T Biiaraihiya Samskrithi Vidy
' N929, I Main, Chamarajpet,
j V'. hfiéngalore -- 550 018,
Rapid. Byits General Secretmy.
2 The Dirt-ctor of Cellegiate Education,
Govermnent of Kamataka,
Seshadri Road,
Bangalore --- 560 001.
3 The Joint Director, é
Collegiate: Education, 1
Government of Kamaiaka,
Sheshadri Road,
Bangaiore ~» 560 601.
(By Sri K. Hiriyaama, Adv. for R1 . _
Sri ND. Jayadevappa, HCGPI" R2.'_angi, . 'M
This W1}: Pet§ti¢;:_--%;s&%:i§e d Anieies 225 & 227 of the
Constitlltion, praying to qua$§:_;i1e4i1:1pug;1ed order dated 4.8.2006
passed by the HofJ_bIcV}3dacaIépnr;l"A;:$pélla1e Tribunal, Bangalore,
" '~ ébmérlg. on for Finai Hearing thés day, the
C0311 (lg the ffiiiowigggz
ORDER
V VV _ In tfiis Apetirtioner has questiosnad the vaiitiity ofthe
‘ {he firsi rzzspondent-nzmzagernerxt dated 8.’?.20(}4
‘ — . $13′) imposing punishment ef his; compulsory retirement
I . V ana%:ae¢m dated 4.8.2906 in M.A(EA’I’).No.20f2064 passed by
Z . ‘V ‘ V % _ ‘ Eéueafional Afipeilaie Tribunal, Bangalore (Amwxure ‘AA’).
%
3:
23$
3
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Swami Division
Assistant in the first respondent»-Institutien on 3.6.1935. it is it ” .
dispute that his appointment was approved by the %
C-oilegiate Education, Bangaiare. Ifiseipiinarjf M;A§r§§}¢e¢di’:;g3’yxr’_eire.VV _
initiated against him by the first respondexit-1fiam:igementV,’»?;s.
Annexure ‘P’ am: 24. 22.2003 on the folieiariéiig charge-:4 T
“That yea’ Sfi .whiIe working as
Second Diiiisjenvv Bharatiya Samskriti
Vidyapithe_Arte College for Women,
. xfijakeizagate ifiangaleiefitéfiéfi 040, though reqxfireci to
_ehtei1’2 ofthe Principal of the eoflege,
tiidtthhet sanction, for the partied of your
absefiee .fi”é1n.:”‘duty fi*om 1” January 2003 to 9″‘
A1’ 2003 and thus remained absent
A “:L:i_z,:1a:11Lti*2A(>risedIjg for the said period and that you
% eegtifiued you: habit cf remaining absent fiem duty
‘ ‘ “aiid that thereby by displaying lack of devotion ta duty
‘ and eendueting yourself in a manner unbearing of an
i
ii;
employee of Bharatiya Samskriti Vidyapith coIrn’x1it£ed”A.’:_f , ”
an act of gave misconéuct.” é
He was served with the in1pu1atioreiiof..§:harge~,a1i;;ng
charge memo. The petitioner sent g1 reply clifir-gig
as per Aimexure ‘R’ dated time
reply, the discipiinary autlmriiy by an
erder dated 22. 1 an enquiry
submitted his charges have
been proved. ‘I’:1’*z§3 dis£sii§!i3:9ia3;3z: .is:méd a second Show cause
xmtice as per Axlziéxfiire and the petitiesner sent
avvrepflly t0v_.»’¢ii;;-“:’i Aimexnre ‘T’ dated 16.2604.
Cofisidafingi Vti;evA_repi}:fef_the petitioner, the discipiinargr’ authority
passed’. géiiétmexure ‘U’ dated 8.7.2984 iniposing
of retirement from service. The petitioner filed
izhgilléixging the said order in appeal N0.?.Oi2€)i}4 before
Appeiiaie Tribunai (for short ‘Tn’b%unaI’),
‘V * The Tribunai after considering the rival centemions ef
K
2233
the parties, has ciismissed the agpeai by its order daied 4.82006
(Annexure ‘AA’).
3. leaned Ccrunsel for the petitioner contends
petitioner was not well from 20.1.2003 to 3e.:_2003.%%%i«1e%fiat’
submitted leave letters along with medécal.;ee:tifi’ca1.§é?.§.”‘§ifi%é§*¢§?é;$ .:
the management did not gram leave. On :
petitioner wanted to attend to his hf: not Vic”:
enter the to permit him to
resume the cfuiy n0:V”rs§€st1It. He has eavmplained to the
Joint Directer as fie: can 21.7.2003 in this regard. The
jam; saint’ a n§i:ce’as per Armexare ‘Z’ dated 3’12.2@o4
jnfifiagenaent to Show cause as to how the
ma;1agA:m_§e:I§”.:E¢iA3V;imed salary of the petitioner from ’20.}.2(}03
” thouga according to the managament he was
absent, amng the said perioé. It is submiiied tfzat
sgzquiry officer has erreneously held that the charges have been
fafeveé. The enquiry ofiieefs repofi has been accepted by the
diseipiinary authority. The Tribunal without noticing the relevante-__
materials on record such as the attendance register has eonfimreiéie
the order. It is submitted that the orders impugned are
nature. It is fixriher argued that the inazzageznefifbefare “§a.esé’3{:Ag:vti_;eV: -.
order as per Annexure ‘U’ dated 8.’?’.2{}O4 has»Aiiet pefigteisséon ”
ofthe competent authority as per seeondfiféviso ei”:
Kamataka Educ-atioaal Instimtiiiizg (Ceiiegieie i§;d;:eatieii)”‘Ru’Ies,
2003 (_’Rules’ for short). Therefere, <?m~e¢;#e by the
d§seiplir1a;3r aeaieetgé and eggemegeeaeie. 11; is further argued
that petitienerzv.aa.e nevi since February, 2903 till
this day T};erzfefore,;"E1eV_Vis Veneified ftienet enly reinstatement with at}
ihmefifis é1i's” full backwages,
4. iearned Counsel appearing for the first
” i,:’es1§1}£ien1 ‘ie?ei11d centend that the petitioner had remained
iiiaefeherieediy absent. Therefnre, the first respmldent-Menageineni
.f1{‘_¥§OT}16I’ eptien bu! to initiate disciplinary preeeeeiinge against
“iiirf1. The enquiry; officer after heiding an enquiry has he-id that the
charges have been proved. The disciplinary authority has “u
secend shew cause notice which has been repiieéi by
Afier considering the reply, the disciplinary xlgsgam e
the impugned order at Annexure ‘U’ dateti-ve.:8.V’;’?’.,2€)O?ht. T1_ie’
was agairr chaliengeé by the Pfititi-‘flier Ve.1’1d”i<l1e
Tribunal by its erder dated 4.3.2306 'f_:5;A" has
confirmed the erder sf ::iisci;§:li;1§L:9§§{.«:autlii5i*iii§:, It argued that
the findings feem*dee{ confirmed by
the Tribuzaal " Vearzh appreciation of materiai
on record, which ;'.':<_::::*"i.::r"1nIVl£:1'f'e?-.'re13:_§;Anse3. Vforihe parties, the question. fer consideratien is whether
VT , _ bidet cf the discipiinary authoriirjs’ at Atmexure ‘L?’ dated
EL
313:’
11
8. The Karnataka Educationa! hastituticms (C011§giaE§_~
Education) Rules, 2903 has been made in accordmme. 1
sectima (E) of Section 145 of the Act, «
with effect from 7.82003. Rule 32 ::’rc~$fides ‘i’:)_1″”‘:h§: u
penaities, which may be imposed for feaséns
{mthe employees. The said Rule » ” _
feilowiigg efliciem: reasons and
as hereiixigfiéré “be imposed an the
mnpiqyeesy fiaigléiy 3 ‘
2 (i) t11锢a.se_.§}fpeoz1s and atfenders only;
%%% ee1isureT4’% %
(figs; w%§ih!1 §i§§i;3g’ofincre1ne1ns;
whififiifldifig of pr<3mot'ions;
‘» (V) ” fiom pay ofthe employees in Whole er
V ” * of 3:1}; peczzxiiary loss caused by negligence
V’ ‘ or breach Beard of
Management, the State Gevemmexrt, flit? Central
Govemmem or any other State Govenrmem,
of orders of the
:3
3
E13
{,
(Vi)
(vii)7Y__
12
any person, had}; or autl1ority…tQ4 wI;i:.iii’ ”
services ofthe empieyee had ‘
reduction to a lower §tag«a_i.n 3. timescale c;f?pa’y ”
for a specified period witiffixnhef dixeaztidn ”
to whether or not ting.–:atVix’pIé3t¢;e séiii’
increments to 1§a§: Td1_;ring ” __of such
reduction and such
peraoa, e2;g%;’edue:;og;gam-%¢i~%wi11:33 have the
efiEj;ct the increments of
1(;x§%é:.,._§La3e scale 0f pay, grade,
Vor ‘ia<fi:ich""shaii, unless otherwise
diféniteé, to the presmetion of the
' "e211plo3V}e:e;..t;)___§1;e time scaje ofpay, grade, post
6; _SéiT'§e'iC€ from which he was reduced with 0:'
' * directions regard1'ng.—
;a’} $gifjio1″it3r and pay in the scale cf pay, grade,
pest gr service to which {he employee is
reduced; I
(b) conditions of restoratiml to the scale cf pay,
grade or posi at service Rom which the
exnpieyee was reduced and his seniority and
pay on such restcratinn ii! the scale of pay,
gade, post or service;
3
3%
13
(viii) compulsory retirement;
(ix) removal fiom service which shall not be »
disquaiification for fixture employment;
(X) dismissal fiom service which s11aI1:§1»’aii§éri1y”*n¢d invu”
the order ofthe disciplinary aiIt12ofity, 1’i’o
than those specifi;~:d ‘in_ % 55) tofl{:§;} s11.g’I§ be
imposed for an .eSt}1bIi{§;1§¢d charge _:(V1-fc<:*r:__ ;. , ;pfi¢n;kkk%
Prgvaqed grey of nfivgjg
manggement xx Lsf.§ g§:_r_c_11V_;;;,r_:vL'V 7 sns,§§;rg§im1. £1i§_missal or
:;c;n__mos_.§;é5tc.,v:shai} be issued gijer prior
§w¢v5;: t;ffl1e Rules states that the Board of management
2 A’ ‘ penalties specified under Rule 32 an may of the
V . §;rq§}§:§y’éés. For ready reference, Ruie 33 is as under:
5
14
“33. I)isci1!linal’Y Authorities: (1) H
Managenlent may impose any of ii:g”‘penah_ieV3A . 1
specified under Rule 32 on any emplffiyae. V V’ V
(2) Without prejudice to t}1.«§§V:Vprot%:isi«:;:z.%’.d$t7. suA§-‘mic ( I)
but subject to the provisions 91* (3}§ ”
(a) the head of the véf the
penalties gn e3;;_us;e.g(i) (ii) ¢§t’Ru2e 32;
(b) the .B0ardT ‘ fiziiagp any of
penéjfies (iii) to (V) of Rule 32.
(3) eff maizagcwxiéiii shafl be competent to
– <=')~¢e
anything contained ha these rules,
in clauses (vi) ta (X) of Rule 32
% ggzmix by any authority lower than
Amh0fi.ty_,,
",3 AS fioticed above, the appeintment of the petitimzer has
V adrnittedly appmved by the competent authority. The
Q
1};
1?
“That apan, though Section
power on the petitioi1ea:%}?:iani1ge§;:aéit’V«is):’diszniss,
discharge or terminate first
respondentiteaghfitjw the is and
absolute uniesfi; from the
ce:mpeten::V auil;£:>;1*i£’V;;%:v_i”c):’° tfiiier words, the
II1az1ag§~:vrne1§1′;A précifivded fiem discharging or
punishiiig idle’ ‘:_i7ef§§;2<)V_::iTcl:2§3?ftea£:her by way of
dismissai Lxsfithoui ._ prior approval of
ciymgcretzrat authbriVtjj,?, a:1<§: consequently, such propcisal
_ .. _ €,f'di§Hii§sai'"'i¥§eIf svéifiki be void 333d inoperative. The
iheyefore, manifest that while the
fnafzageszieiéif the ciiscreiien ta izzitiaie deparimental
e:z2€;i2iry"—VAanti'"'V pass an order proposing ts dismiss,
discharge" at temxinate a teacher, weir prafiai
in an inchoate stage {iii 'the managemeni
ébtains the prior approvai frem the competent
é.ut%iority for such proposai 1'0 dismiss, discharge or
ienninate the service: of ihe teacher inasrnuch as, the
preposal fer such dismissa}, éischarge car temfinatioza
1'
'\
15
would remain only as a proposal to put an end of the
de fércto relationship between the Management and the
teacher till the prior approval is obtained from the
competent autherity for such proposal, by ..wh__ieh, ” ”
proposal to put an end to the de “r?1cfé:,A_relatie;ésIfi{). 4′ V ‘
matures and results to end the dejzzre sfeiatieusliip.
In the light of the above discuesionfi IAa11′{lcffiiVe_v y=’iev§ tha1;_t,l1e, E
order of the disciplinary authority 33 ‘Tribunal
impugned hereir; areeimeiid ‘are*.1§a.h}e §e”i1e’V4quashe-d. Having
come to the ceneleiisiem gimisinnexlt is non»-est, it is
‘unnecessary in ee11si(§er~.the otf)exAcefite§iti0ns urged by the teamed
I A ….. .. H
I}. of the iearned Counsei fer the
— is tha1″the’1~petitiener has been kept out ofserviee without
‘Therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement xvii}: ail
mnefits and full backwages. In View ef my
“V that the order 015’ the ciisefpiinary authority as also the
eriiuer of the Tribunal are invalid, the petitioner is entitied for
3!
E,
‘;
19
reinstatemeni with all consequential benefits: »B1;t
again is whether he is entitled for full backwa”ges:=%&%_’T *
12. The award of back wagw is’no__ l0n§e:sV.{:i::1sids;r£’§5riV_:t%:) 3
the natural consequence of .211
siglificant change in the last .L”The£éib;¢, no precise
formula can be iaié down as to» v11::é;§r:’whatA payxnent
of entire back be upon the facts
and of “of the impenam factors,
which haveto ifitq émfigisivfiéxafiozg is the length of service
:_that_;1n had réiicié:-3-d«with the empioyer. Ifthe employee
1r£:;;dércd’a..¢7o;1§idémbie period of service and his services were
M he may be awarded fun 01′ partial
in View the fact that at his age and the
possessed by him, he may net be in position to get
-a,’:{i§fl1%3i* employment. The Apex Caurt in GM zz,4Rmv;4
ROADWAFS KS’. RUDHAN SINGH … (2965) 5 sec 591, was
54
20
considering ‘the payment of backwages to a vzorkman ‘i3;§ “‘
Industrial Disputes Act. 1: has been held as under. * % %
“There is no rule of thumb that in eyrety wher«:=”7 v
the Industrial Tribunai gives aiming that_’_fi:e. .= ‘ %
tesmination 0f service was vioIat.éa1;:.§f– fitif’-~
the Act, eniire back \a!agVeS’~§§houidh } _ A
host of factors was the _.ma;i11;er’ .Va;;:d bf
selection and ag§p($ir;:tii1e12t:1._i.e;L
ad’w.reI1is;_:=V.mem 6fvj:.¥3e. inviting applications
fmm tiic — fiismihange, nature of
ap;)oint1ne:1V{,L__ Whéflfif ad hoc, short term,
_ dai1y«:$§f$ge~,tem;§i:raz;§ _or giremlanent in character, any
_ :S§>e.j;c_’§a3. qugiificagian requiwd for the §ob and the like
~$}:lv()f£_.i1’V£’iE baimaced in taking a decision
V ‘A of back Wages. One of the
K g fétééars, which has to be taken into
. .’V’cern9§deraii§x1, is the length of service, which the
had rendereé with the eztmloyer. If the
‘ wfyrkman has rendered a censiderabie period of
u anfi his services are Wrongfuiiy terrriinateat he
may be awarded fizii or partial bask wages keeping in
View the fact that at his age and the qualification
ii;
2?
possessed by him he may not be in a position to get
anotlier employment. However, where the tow!
Ieflgth Of service rendered by 8 workman is V673′
small, the award of back wages for the completej:
period Le. fiom the date ofterminastion unnie da#,é’di”~–i::”; A
the award, which our experience showgis 4′ v V
large, would be wholly in ” ‘ i R
importarxt factor, which requirés–.._§6~~ ‘ éntiy
C-ovnsideration, is the natpre Of _e1iip.{Qyn}eni..’
regular cannot be
1:3 _» daily wage
empleyniérlfi “far 240 days in a,
13;» ”.Court in £::P.sTAz:E azwsswam
T.iiLgoRP0:i4’2’I0gvi*’L;5;:TEp I/IS’. LEZIJAY NARAIN 245113;’ –
A _ I Sé’C’.. ‘?”.{3, held as under:
% ~ jirecise fermula «can be iaid down as to under
” wwiiat circumstances payment of entire back wages
should be allowed. Iiidispinabiy, it depends upon the
facts and circtmistances of each case. It Wflilfd,
5
3
2 E
2,2;
%
22
however, not be correct to contend that; ‘is’
automatic. It should not be ganted mechanie:fi 1_§%~ ._
because on teehnicai grounds ofiierwise an ”
of ternfinaiien is found to be .336 V’ 1
previsiens of Section the
Disputes Act. While gra:Iiiuiig.V’»:1*e}.i§’«’f, fipp1§caiiofi’f§ei’
mind an ihe part offjtize is imfiéraiive.
Payment of fuii baac-it the naturai
eonsequenszef
I4.”‘1n .I:§:;§§(‘,;S’i’:§%’}§.”‘i’T.?.:I”1»’§.T’:§*.fI1:.”-;S’ ‘:1mip. AGRA WAL — (2007) 2
SCC’ 433, £113 a3 under:
“I8: (Io:ni33g_ bagk backwages, even if the Court
” fizgds award back wages, the question
é V was; 1ie.yvhetkiéftiaék wages shouid be awarded fully or
V’ _ (and if 30 the pereentage). That depends
” and circumstances of each case. Any
received by me employee during the relevant
j ” on acceunt (sf aitemative employtnent err
V business is a relevant fatter is be taken noie of whiie
awarding ba.ck~wages, in addition 10111»: severai factors
E
2%
23
mentioned in Rudhar: Singh {(2005} }§CC«§§1f} aagi
{fday Naram Pcmdey {(2006) I SCC ¥.?9}.’_ ‘I’i3erefo;e,-. _ _ ” A T
it is necessary for the e1np1eyee_i<3_Vpiea£i~I}1'at he
not gainfizlly employed from'V"L'e'1.i_ie 'date °
temlinaiion. While an ei3:§loyee"'emeietV 'vhe_Aaske£i to"
prove the negative, he 11a.ékte' at that
he was neither empioyegieseer engaged
business or ar;{i7. 't}x'.e1""i1e "did':~xtIet–«ww§iave any
income. the enlpioyer.
But nd –eb1§ge€ib::”‘or’i the temzinated
ernpleyee : te. -or ” secure altemative
en’1plo3rr.€1e1:t.’7
V. – ‘I5’: {fie phasent eeeegflie petitioner had been working with
the ‘ since 3.6.1985. His appeintment was
“””approve£i–..4§ey jfhe authority. The order of punishment
” on “ni.:%.i was illegal. He has Worked for about 12 years
V angé blemish iili he was eotnpulserily retired. It is the ease
“efthe .;:i»eiif.iene:’ that he was net gainfixlfy exnpieyed fimrn the day
‘heKva.s prevented by the managerneni te attend to his duty ti}! this
day. The management has not produced any xnateriai to show thai
2}?
24
petitioner was gainfully employed during the.».aibresai”d” .4
Considering the age of the petitioner, the nauiare ££t_id~ 7/f
service he has renderedji am ofthe viefiv i:Ii5:1V_he 15′ ‘cntit3edT’
ofthe backwages.
M’ In me resuit? I éfiss I \,
(i) 111: * is» éwcordkngly ailowed.
The. order pgsgeaby aumomy dated 3.7.-2004
(Amwxure ‘U’) by the appellate authofity
“A…A3) aye hereby quashed.
*-gespondent is directed to reinstate the
: VV %”AA….v.pei;iti{3.rie;; tiA3 thfé. which he was working wifiajn a period «bf
. i weeks date 9f receipt ofa copy ofthis order:
” 7 The pefitioner is entitled far all coasequemiax benefits,
‘ fiiiv). I fimher direct the first respendent to pay 59% of the
fiéckwaga to the”: petitioner from 1.2.2003 ti}! the date of his
”
héa