- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200238 OF 2024 BETWEEN: DEVANE KARTHIK S/O. SHARANAYYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. OCC. RETD. PRINCIPAL R/O. H.NO.19-1-190, SHIVANAGAR SOUTH, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SRIKAR M.S. IAS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. MANJUSHRI N., IAS COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. SRI. SHIVASHARAN GOLLE THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI-585 101. …RESPONDENTS 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …PROFORMA PARTY (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R3 AND R4) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SEC. 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO I) THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM IN SO FAR AS VIOLATION OF ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.203337/2019 DATED 05-08-2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. II) ISSUE ANY OTHER DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THE HON’BLE Court. THIS CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) This contempt petition is filed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused for violating the order passed in W.P.No.203337/2019 dated 05.08.2024. 2. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri P.Vilas Kumar appearing for Sri Nitesh Padiyal, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Malharao, learned AAG along with Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the material on record. 3. Case of the complainant is that, he was appointed as lecturer cum Principal by the 3rd respondent and his appointment was approved by the Government vide order dated 02.03.1985. The said post was approved by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education with salary grant, vide order dated 29.03.1985. Since then he discharged his duties sincerely and honestly. He retired - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 from service on 31.07.2015, after attaining the age of superannuation. After he was relieved from service, management submitted a proposal for the sanction of pension, which was sanctioned and even the leave encashment benefit of Rs.13,27,140/- was sanctioned on 21.05.2016 and the said amount was credited in the college account on 01.10.2018. However, without giving any opportunity and hearing, respondent No.3 passed an order on 14.05.2016 (14.05.2019) withdrawing the leave encashment benefit. Hence, he was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.203337/2019 and the learned Single Judge passed an order setting aside the said order of the 3rd respondent, with a specific direction to consider his representation for leave encashment benefits, after hearing and to pass appropriate orders. 4. Further, pursuant to the order passed in the Writ Petition, complainant made representations to the respondents on 10.09.2024, 20.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, however, the respondents have failed to comply the same, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 on the other hand, passed an order dated 05.09.2024 in respect of release of leave encashment benefit, which is not in strict compliance with the order passed in the writ petition and therefore, they are liable to be hauled up for committing the contempt of the direction issued by this Court. 5. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that on a decision taken by the management and the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Principal of the college submitted the leave encashment bill of Rs.13,27,140/-, which was approved by the 3rd respondent and a proposal was submitted to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to release the grant. The said amount was directed to be used only for the payment of petitioner’s earned leave encashment. A cheque for the said amount was also received by the Principal, Amareshwar Degree College, Aurad (B), however, the encashment of the EL was stopped and not deposited to the account of the petitioner. Later, without giving an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner impugned order dated 14.05.2016 (14.05.2019) came to be passed by the 3rd respondent, sanctioning only an amount of Rs.1,61,380/-. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. He contended that inspite of a specific direction in the writ petition to pass an appropriate order, after hearing the petitioner, the respondents in utter disregard to the said order, with a sole intention of disobeying the order passed by this Court, mechanically passed the order, which is not in compliance with the direction issued by this Court. 6. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that word ‘consider’ cannot be construed as an empty formality, but means there has to be application of mind of the authority to the facts involved in the writ petition as well as the law applicable to the case in hand and compliance of directions shall be in letter and spirit. 7. The learned AAG has contended that subsequent to the order passed in the writ petition, two - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 notices were issued to the complainant by the 3rd respondent – Joint Director, Office of the Regional Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Kalaburagi and inspite of that, complainant failed to appear before the respondent authorities, hence they were constrained to pass an order on 17.02.2025. However, during the pendency of the present petition, on 25.02.2025, this Court rejected the said compliance with a direction for fresh consideration, as the petitioner was not heard. He contended that thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent on 06.03.2025 and after hearing and perusing the documents, an order has been passed as per Annexure-R3 dated 02.04.2025. He contended that the petitioner has been given full hearing and after considering all the relevant material, a detailed order has been passed, in compliance with the direction issued by this Court. He contended that there is no willful disobedience of the direction issued, as alleged by the complainant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 8. The prayer in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to quash the order dated 14.05.2016 (14.05.2019) passed by the 3rd respondent and to direct the respondents for payment of earned leave encashment of Rs.13,27,140/- as per the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent etc. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has not directed the authorities concerned to release the said amount. As per order dated 14.05.2016 (14.05.2019), petitioner was not entitled for a sum of Rs.13,27,140/- towards leave encashment, on the other hand, he would only be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,61,380/-. Since, the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to set aside the said order with the following directions at para 3 to 6: ‘(3) The petitioner shall construe the order dated 14.05.2016 (Annexure-Q) as a show cause notice and submit his reply/objections as to why he would be entitled to sum of Rs.13,27,140/- towards leave encashment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 (4) On such objections being filed, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner. (5) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (6) The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.’ 9. The 3rd respondent filed an affidavit before this Court bringing to the notice of the Court, the order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure-R5). In the said affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was requested to appear and submit a report and inspite of issuance of two notices, as he did not appear, they proceeded to pass the order dated 17.02.2025. 10. We do find from the order sheet dated 25.02.2025, this Court rejected the compliance put forth by the State at Annexure-R5, observing that there has to be fresh consideration in light of the direction of the learned Single Judge. It is observed that the grievance - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner was not heard before the order dated 14.05.2016 (14.05.2019) was passed, and consideration at Annexure – R5 is again without sufficient notice. This Court further observed that the direction for consideration is a consideration with due application of mind and after hearing the petitioner, which is the purport of the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the compliance put forth by the State at Annexure-R5 was rejected. The petitioner/complainant was directed to be present before the Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Regional Office, Kalaburagi on 06.03.2025 at 3.00 p.m. 11. From the above, it is clear that a fresh direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to take necessary steps not to prolong the matter indefinitely. 12. The learned Senior counsel would strongly rely on para Nos.19 and 20 of the order passed by the High - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and The State of Andhra Pradesh in contempt case No.2013/2016 decided on 27.04.2017, in the case of S.Kiranmayi v. N. Sambasiva Rao and others, which are extracted hereunder: ’19. In the light of the above decisions it has to be considered whether the direction of this Court mandates the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in a positive manner or it left anything to the discretion of the respondents enabling them to pass an order giving rise to a fresh cause of action. “20. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. 's case (supra) the word "consider" fell for interpretation and the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The words 'considers it necessary’ postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, be think oneself, to reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 Words & Phrases-Permanent Edn: Vol. 8-A to 'consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination, to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite to the makings of the order would be held to be non- existent. A necessary corollary of what has been observed above is that mind has to be applied with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents mentioned in the order. An application of the mind with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine only a few of the many documents mentioned in the order, while there has been no such application of mind in respect of the remaining documents, would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. If, however, there has been consideration of the matter regarding the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents and an order is passed thereafter, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 Court would stay its hand in the matter and would not substitute its own opinion for that of the authority concerned regarding the necessity to obtain the documents in question." 13. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that there has to be application of mind of the authority and the word ‘consider’ cannot be construed as complying the empty formality, and in the present case the order dated 02.04.2025 now passed by the 3rd respondent is not in strict compliance with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court during pendency of this petition, petitioner appeared before the Regional Joint Director on 06.03.2025, which we also find from the affidavit dated 16.04.2025 and 10.06.2025 filed by the 3rd respondent. The said affidavit states that the petitioner appeared along with representation and documents and after verifying the details of the petitioner/complainant’s accumulated EL by verifying the attendance Register of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 College, it was found that the total accumulated EL are only 71 and not 300 as contended by the complainant. Hence, he is entitled for encashment pertaining to only 71 EL i.e., Rs.3,14,090/-. A perusal of the order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-R3) now passed by the 3rd respondent do indicate that a detailed consideration was made, to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs.3,14,090/-. This Court sitting in contempt jurisdiction cannot go into the veracity of the said order and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he can seek remedy as permissible under law. 15. Before parting we are constrained to refer to para Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 10.06.2025 filed by the 3rd respondent which are extracted hereunder: ‘04. It is submitted that, it appears the complainant being the Principal and custodian of all the records more particularly Service Register and the Attendant Register of the staff, hence his absence in the attendant register was not deducted in the Earned Leave. In the order dated 02.04.2025 table showing - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 the details of the Earned Leave and the details of the leave obtained. 05. It is further submitted that, on various occasions in the attendance register, the complainant has not even signed. Therefore, as stated by the complainant that the total 300 accumulated Earned Leave is totally false and without there being supported documents. As stated above, the complainant being the custodian of the above Service Register book, it appears the Earned Leave was got entered every year to gain wrongly at the time of retirement. I state that, on 28.04.2025 just to keep the contempt petition alive has filed Memo along with documents, which was already with the file and the Service Register showing the total accumulated Earned Leave the same has to be inconsonance with the attendant register. At the cost of repetition I state that, the relevant pages of the attendant register wherein the name of the complainant is appearing where taken from the college, the same was attested by the Principal and these extracts of the Attendants Register are the material documents for calculating the Earned Leave and all the extract of the Attendants Register are produced herewith. For the above said reasons, I pray this Hon'ble Court to drop the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3801-DB CCC No. 200238 of 2024 contempt proceedings, in the interest of justice.’ 16. Without making any further observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Proceedings are dropped. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE HB/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 JLR