- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5183 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SUMA G C W/O MANJUNATHA H T AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SERVING AS HEAD MISTRESS, A-BHIMAPPA NAYAKA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KAMANABAVI BADAVANA, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH M DODDAMANI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI SAGAR B. B., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER PRIMARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE PRESIDENT CUM SECRETARY AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DISTRICT MADHAKARI NAYAKA VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 K.B. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI R GURURAJ, ADV. FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 10.07.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE R-2 STANDS REVOKED AS 6 MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES A TEACHER IN THE RESPECTIVE SCHOOLS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a suspended Head Mistress of second respondent-School is before this Court questioning the order of suspension dated 10.07.2023 and also praying for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pay subsistence allowances from the date of suspension i.e., from 10.07.2023 till 11.01.2024 and to pay full salary from 11.01.2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner is working as Head Mistress in the second respondent-District Madakari Nayaka Vidya Samsthe (Regd.). Alleging certain misconduct, the second respondent kept the petitioner under suspension under memo dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure-B). Annexure-B makes it clear that the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 17 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 (for short “1999 Rules) read with Rule 98 of KCSRs. Immediately, thereafter, on 06.10.2023, charge memo under 1999 Rules was issued to the petitioner. As the second respondent failed to appoint an Enquiry Officer within six months and failed to complete the enquiry within six months, the petitioner is before this Court praying for above stated reliefs. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Satish M Doddamani for Sri.Sagar B.B., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel Sri.Vigneshwar S Shastry for Sri.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Satish M.Doddamani for petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 has failed to complete the enquiry within six months and even to appoint an Enquiry Officer, as such, the respondents are required to revoke suspension of the petitioner. He would further submit that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the subsistence allowances at 100% of the salary. Learned senior counsel would invite attention of this Court to Section 92(3)(a) and (b) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short “1983 Act”) and submits that a teacher could be placed under suspension by the Managing Committee where disciplinary proceeding against him/her is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 contemplated or is pending and no such suspension shall remain in force for more than six months. If the enquiry is not completed within a period of six months, the Secretary of the Management shall report to the Competent Authority seeking extension of period of suspension beyond six months. It is his submission that the second respondent failed to appoint an Enquiry Officer within a period of six months and further the second respondent failed to seek extension of suspension period within six months. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance at 100% of the salary. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.Vigneshwar Shastry for respondent No.2 would submit that immediately on issuance of charge memo dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-C) to the petitioner, the petitioner sought certain documents and information. Further learned senior counsel would submit that the first respondent nominated its nominee belatedly i.e., beyond - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 six months from the date of issuance of charge memo, as such, the Management is not responsible for not completing enquiry within six months and delay in completing the enquiry is attributable to the State Government and that the Management is not liable to pay subsistence allowance. Learned senior counsel invites attention of this Court to statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and to Annexure-R9/Memo dated 06.03.2024 of Deputy Director (Administration) of School Education Department wherein the Department has nominated its representative to the Enquiry Committee. Since the Government has nominated its representative after expiry of six months, the Government would be liable to pay subsistence allowance. Learned senior counsel would also invite attention of this Court to the order dated 25.06.2024 in W.P.No.5160/2024 and submits that the co- ordinate Bench of this Court had directed payment of subsistence allowance holding that the enquiry is not completed within six months and the said order is in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 appeal in W.A.No.1247/2024. Since the said order is in appeal, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned senior counsels for the parties and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the points which fall for consideration are: (i) as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance as prayed? (ii) in the facts and circumstances, whether the second respondent would be liable to pay subsistence allowance or not? 7. Answer to the above points would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the petitioner was kept under suspension alleging certain misconduct under memo dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure-B). The order of suspension itself makes it clear that the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 17 of 1999 Rules and Rule 98 of KCSRs. It is also not in dispute that under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 Annexure-C dated 06.10.2023, charge memo is issued to the petitioner. 8. Section 92(3) of 1983 Act reads as follows: ”92. Dismissal, removal, etc.,- (3)(a) A teacher or other employee may be placed under suspension by the managing committee,- (i) where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (ii) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than six months: Provided that if the enquiry is not completed within the period of six months, the secretary shall report the matter to the Competent Authority, who may permit extension of the period of suspension beyond six months, if he is satisfied that the enquiry could not be so completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the Governing Council.” The above rule empowers the Management to keep an employee under suspension where disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending. If the enquiry is not completed within a period of six months, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 Secretary shall report the matter to the Competent Authority, who may permit extension of period of suspension beyond six months. If the enquiry is not completed or a charge memo is not issued within six months, suspension shall not remain in force beyond six months. The State Government has framed 1999 Rules in exercise of its power under Section 145 of 1983 Act. 9. Rule 16 of 1999 Rules empowers the Appointing Authority to place an employee under suspension under the circumstances stated therein. Sub-Rule 5(a)(b) and (c) of Rule 16 of 1999 Rules reads as follows: “(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (b) Where an employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise) any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may for reasons to be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 recorded by him in writing, direct that the employee shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings. (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made on or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.” In terms of the above rule, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. Further it states that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. 10. Rule 17 provides for subsistence allowance during suspension. Relevant rule 17(1)(a) for the purpose of present case reads as follows: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 “17. Subsistence allowance during suspension:- (1) Every employee placed under suspension shall be entitled to the following payment, namely: (a) Subsistence allowance at an amount equivalent to fifty percent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension. Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the employee shall be entitled to subsistence allowance equivalent to seventy-five percent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension subject to conditions contained in sub-rule (6): Provided further that when an employee is convicted by a competent court and sentenced to imprisonment, no subsistence allowance shall be payable.” In terms of the above, an employee whose suspension is continued beyond six months would be entitled to subsistence allowance equivalent to 75% of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 17 reads as follows: “(6) The subsistence allowance under these rules and consequential amount to be paid under - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 sub-rule (5) shall be paid from the management from its own funds, except in respect of employees working in aided posts where the suspension is approved by the competent authority. Provided further that the disciplinary authority shall complete the enquiry within a period of 6 months. In cases, where enquiry other than in criminal cases continue beyond 6 months, management is liable to pay subsistence allowance. Provided further that the delay in enquiry beyond six months is attributable to the employee the subsistence allowance may be restricted to 50% or below as deemed fit by the disciplinary authority.” The above rule makes it clear that subsistence allowance shall be paid by the Management from its own funds except in respect of the employees working in aided posts where the suspension is approved by the competent authority. The proviso would state that disciplinary authority shall complete enquiry within a period of six months and in cases, where enquiry other than in criminal cases continue beyond six months, management is liable to pay subsistence allowance. Second, proviso would state - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 that delay in enquiry beyond six months is attributable to the employees, the subsistence allowance may be restricted to 50% or below as deemed fit by the disciplinary authority. In view of the above rule, it is to be examined as to whether the Management or the petitioner is responsible for non-completion of enquiry even after expiry of six months. 11. Order of suspension is dated 10.07.2023. The date of issuance of charge memo is dated 06.10.2023. No document whatsoever is placed on record so as to establish that the Management had requested competent authority to nominate its representative for the Enquiry Committee or to establish that the Enquiry Committee was constituted within six months from the date of issuance of charge memo by the second respondent-Management. Admittedly, under Annexure-R9, memo dated 06.03.2024, the competent authority i.e., Deputy Director (Administration) School Education Department, Chitradurga District nominated departmental - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 representative for Enquiry Committee. The reference made to the correspondences in the said memo dated 06.03.2024 of the second respondent-Institution are all dated 24.01.2024, 17.01.2024 and 21.02.2024. All those correspondences are beyond six months from the date of keeping the petitioner under suspension. The second respondent along with its statement of objection has placed on record the correspondences between the second respondent and first respondent. All those correspondences would clearly establish that delay in conducting enquiry is on the part of second respondent- Management. Therefore, the second respondent- Management is liable to pay subsistence allowance. Since the petitioner is continued under suspension beyond six months, the petitioner would be entitled for 75% of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension in terms of the proviso to Rule 17(1)(a) of 1999 Rules. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 12. The petitioner has sought for declaration that the order of suspension dated 10.07.2023 stands revoked as six months time has elapsed from the date of the passing the order of suspension. The petitioner would not be entitled for the said relief. Sub-Rule 5(a) of Rule 16 of 1999 rules makes it clear that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. It is noticed from the statement of objections that enquiry against the petitioner is at the stage of submission of enquiry report. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension, after expiry of six months from the date of suspension i.e., 10.07.2023 till the conclusion of enquiry and passing of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2490 WP No. 5183 of 2024 final order on the report of the Enquiry Officer. (iii) Respondent No.2 shall pay arrears of subsistence allowance within 30 days from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31