- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB CCC No. 200196 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200196 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHRI. HEBBALAPPA S/O HAVALAPPA HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: RACHAYYA NAGAR, POST: SOMAPUR, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG – 582 207. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SECRETARY SHRI. NARASIMHASWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD.), GODEKERE, TQ. CHIKKANAYANA HALLI, DIST: TUMKUR – 571 604. 2. SMT. SINDHU B. RUPESH THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. …ACCUSED Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB CCC No. 200196 of 2024 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. …PROFORMA PARTY (BY SRI. A.M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R3; V/O DATED: 20.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR THE PRESENT) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 25-05-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.84740/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) Contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated, alleging disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.84740/2010. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB CCC No. 200196 of 2024 2. The above writ petition was filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge at Raichur in EAT No.02/2004 dated 25.08.2009. 3. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge at Raichur in EAT No.02/2004 dated 25.08.2009 with the following directions: “12.3. Respondents are directed to appoint a fresh enquiry officer in terms of Rules of 2003. The enquiry officer shall comply with all the requirements of Rules of 2003 and the Act of 1983 in conduct and completion of the enquiry proceedings. 12.4. The enquiry not being conducted in a proper and required manner, the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence wages from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that insofar as the direction issued to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer in terms of Rules, 2003 and to conduct the enquiry, respondent No.1 has appointed a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB CCC No. 200196 of 2024 fresh Enquiry Officer and the enquiry is in progress and therefore, the said direction has been complied. 5. He contended that insofar as the direction issued regarding entitlement of subsistence wages from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement, it is not clarified in the order, as to who has to pay the said subsistence wages. He further contended that the subsistence wages have to be paid by the Government/respondent No.2 and unless the said question is decided, there is no contempt as such, at this stage. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand would contend that, since the enquiry was not conducted in a proper and required manner, it is respondent No.1 who has to pay the subsistence wages as directed by the learned Single Judge and having not paid, he has violated the said order. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed that, the enquiry has been now commenced. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB CCC No. 200196 of 2024 Insofar as the directions issued to pay the subsistence wages, there is no specific order as to who has to pay the wages. In this regard, the complainant is required to seek necessary clarification. Unless, it is clarified and specific order is passed or the matter is decided in the appeal, it cannot be said that either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 has committed contempt of the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, reserving liberty to the complainant to seek clarification with regard to the said direction issued, we drop the contempt proceedings for the present, petition is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.1 CT:NI