- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 22576 OF 2019 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22573 OF 2019 (S-DIS) WRIT PETITION NO. 22574 OF 2019 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 22575 OF 2019 (S-RES) IN W.P.No. 22576 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 1065/6, JNANABINDU SHADAKSHARI MUTT BADAVANE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.B.KANTHARAJU S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.G.V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.S.PARIKSHIT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. M.C. BHARATHI S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MALLAGERE VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 119. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 2 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012 5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101 6 . SMT. M. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SRI.N.B.KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SRI.BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. 7 . SRI. TIPATUR VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, RAJASHEKAR BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BYSRI. K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-3, R-4 & R-5; R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED:25.05.2020, NOTICE TO R-7 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE EDUCATION APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN E.A.T.No.2/2017 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY R-1 IN E.A.T.No.2/2017 ON THE FILE OF EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIVUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, ETC. IN W.P.No. 22573 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 1065/6, JNANABINDU SHADAKSHARI MUTT BADAVANE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.B.KANTHARAJU S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.G.V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.S.PARIKSHIT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI.NAGARAJU.A.C., S/O CHIKKANNA., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O ALLILUGHATTA VILLAGE, HAGALAVADI POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 222. 2 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012 5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101 6 . SMT. M. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SRI.N.B.KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SRI.BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. 7 . SRI. TIPATUR VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, RAJASHEKAR BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-3, R-4 & R-5; R-2, R-6 AND R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIVUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN E.A.T.No.1/2017 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY R-1 IN E.A.T.No.1/2017 ON THE FILE OF EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, ETC. IN W.P.No. 22574/2019 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 1065/6, JNANABINDU SHADAKSHARI MUTT BADAVANE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.B.KANTHARAJU, S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.G.V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.S.PARIKSHIT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI.LAKSHMAIAH, S/O HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O GOWDANAKATTE VILLAGE, MATHIHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI AND TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTICT-572201. 2 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012 5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101 6 . SMT. M. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SRI.N.B.KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SRI.BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. 7 . SRI. TIPATUR VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, RAJASHEKAR BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH.T.BHANDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-3, R-4 & R-5; R-2, R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATD 06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN E.A.T.No.3/2017 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY R-1 IN E.A.T.No.3/2007 ON THE FILE OF EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, ETC. IN W.P.No. 22575 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 1065/6, JNANABINDU SHADAKSHARI MUTT BADAVANE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.B.KANTHARAJU S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.G.V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.S.PARIKSHIT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI.NANJAIAH.V., S/O VENKATAPPA., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O HIREBIDARE VILLAGE, MATHIHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI AND TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. 2 . SRI. BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARA, BENGALURU - 560 012 5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101 6 . SMT. M. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SRI.N.B.KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SRI.BIDRAMBIKA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HONNAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT R/O SHADAKSHARI EXTENSION TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. 7 . SRI. TIPATUR VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, RAJASHEKAR BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-3, R-4 & R-5; R-2, R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU IN E.A.T.No.4/2017 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R-1 IN EAT No.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. The Management has filed this batch of writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed by the Management against four of its non-teaching staff (hereinafter referred to as the “employees”) and has directed that they be reinstated to their original post and they - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER should be paid arrears of the salary from the date of their suspension, till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. The Tribunal has passed four separate orders, but the issue involved in all the four cases are the same. 3. The respondents are the employees, who were appointed by the Management and their posts were admitted to grant with effect from 06.01.2007. 4. The Management sought permission of the Director of the Pre-University Board to initiate an enquiry. The employees were issued with a show cause notice, in which, it was alleged that they had committed several acts of misconduct. They were consequentially kept under suspension pending the holding of an enquiry. It also issued a charge memo to them. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 5. The Management, on the very date that it issued the charge memo, also sought for permission of the Director of the Pre-University Board for conducting an enquiry. 6. The Management though did not receive the permission sought for from the Department to conduct an enquiry, proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer and an enquiry was conducted. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted a Report holding that the charges against the employees were proved. On the basis of this Enquiry Report, the Management proceeded to dismiss the employees from the service. 8. Challenging this dismissal, the employees preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the matter in detail has recorded a finding that there was no material to indicate that a resolution had been passed by the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER Management to hold an enquiry and it was also not clear that the exact manner and place where the enquiry was conducted. 9. 9. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the employees were not paid the subsistence allowance and the challenge made by the Management to the direction to pay the subsistence allowance was dismissed and yet the subsistence allowance was not paid. 10. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that, as required under the Rules, the Management had not secured prior permission of the Director of the Department to appoint an Enquiry Officer and it had not obtained the prior permission of the Director to impose a penalty of dismissal. 11. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to hold that the dismissal was illegal and has set aside the said order and directed the reinstatement and has also - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER ordered the payment of full back wages and the grant of all consequential benefits. 12. The Management is therefore before this Court by way of these writ petitions contending that the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable. 13. It is contended by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management that, the Tribunal failed to notice that the Management had repeatedly requested for grant of permission to hold an enquiry and despite an order being passed by this Court in W.P.No.31084/2017, which in fact, was disposed of on the basis of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Government would take decision regarding the grant of the permission, the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that there was a serious error committed by the Management in holding the enquiry and in dismissing the respondents. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 14. Learned Senior counsel, Sri.Chandrashekar G.V. also contended that the employees were basically holding the Management to ransom and were not allowing the Management to run the institution and these aspects were not even considered by the Tribunal. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the employees on the other hand contended that the entire enquiry was ab- initio void, since it was in gross contravention of the statutory Rules, which required the permission of the Department to appoint an Enquiry Officer and, more importantly, the permission of the Department to impose any penalty. 16. It is contended that the employees were prosecuted in every possible manner while being subjected to an illegal enquiry and were ultimately unlawfully dismissed and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of termination. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 17. In light of the above, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the employees and directing their reinstatement and also ordering payment of full back wages along with all other consequential benefits. 18. Before considering the matter on merits, it would be necessary to consider the statutory Rules in relation to an employee of an Aided Pre-University College. The Aided Pre-University Colleges are governed by the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-In Aid Etc.) Rules, 2006,(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which have been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 145(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 19. Chapter V of the said Rule provides for the manner in which Aided Pre-University Colleges are to be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER administered. Rule 28 provides with the procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiries. 20. Rule 28(1)1states that the Managing committee would be competent to impose penalties specified under Rule 27. However, this sub-Rule is subjected to a proviso, which states that, in case of employees working in aided posts, the managing committee shall obtain the prior approval of the Director, Pre-University Education for imposing any of the penalties on any employee. 21. It is therefore clear that, whenever a penalty is proposed to be imposed on an employee of an Aided Pre-University College, the prior approval of the Director is a must. 128.Procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiries:-(1)The managing committee shall be competent to impose penalties specified in Rule 27. Provided that in case of employees working in aided posts, the managing committee shall obtain the prior approval of the Director, Pre- University Education for imposing any of the penalties on any employee. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 22. Rule 28(3)2 makes it clear in all disciplinary proceedings, it is the Director who would be the Authority competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer, whether he had ordered a suo motu enquiry or he had ordered an enquiry on the proposal of the managing committee. 23. It is therefore clear that, even if the charges are framed by the managing committee, the Enquiry Officer would unnecessarily have to be a person who is appointed by the Director. 24. Furthermore, Rule 28(4)3 stipulates that, whenever the enquiry is proposed by the managing committee, 228.Procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiries:- (3) In all the disciplinary proceedings, the Director shall be competent to appoint the enquiry officer either suo motu if the enquiry is ordered by him under sub- rule (2) or on a proposal by a managing committee if the charges are framed by the managing committee. 328.Procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiries:- (4)Where the enquiry is ordered by the Director suo motu, then the enquiry officer shall be a serving Government servant. If the enquiry is proposed by the managing committee then the enquiry officer may be a serving or retired Government servant or a legal practitioner. If a retired government servant or a legal practitioner is appointed as the enquiry officer, then the managing committee shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- with the Director and the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER then the Enquiry Officer would have to be a serving or a retired Government Servant or a legal practitioner. 25. It is therefore clear that under Rule 28(3) & (4) it is only the Director who can appoint an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer so appointed would be either be a retired Government servant or a legal practitioner. 26. Rule 28(5)4 also stipulates that, on completion of the Enquiry Report, the Report is required to be submitted to the Director and, in the event, the enquiry is ordered by the managing committee he would have to send the Report to the managing committee for the decision. same shall be payable to the person appointed as enquiry officer upon completion of the enquiry and submission of the report to the director. 428.Procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiries:- (5) The Director shall take a decision on the report if the enquiry is ordered by him or send the report to the managing committee for a decision if the enquiry had been sought by the managing committee. An appeal shall lie on the said decision to the Education Appellate Tribunal. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 27. It is therefore clear that, an enquiry can be conducted only by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the Director and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer so appointed, will have to conduct an enquiry and submit a Report to the Director, who shall thereupon send it to the managing committee. 28. In this case, it is not in dispute that the respondents are aided employees and, therefore, as per the statutory Rules, whenever an enquiry was contemplated or proposed by the managing committee gains them, it was necessary for them to request the Director to appoint an Enquiry Officer and only an Enquiry Officer appointed by the Director could conduct an enquiry and such an Enquiry Officer would, after conducting an enquiry, be obliged to furnish the Enquiry Report to the Director. 29. It is rather obvious that this Rule is designed to ensure that, an employee, whose salary is being paid - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER by the Government is not subjected to unnecessary harassment by a Managing committee and the Rule contemplates the Director to have an oversight over the entire process of disciplining an employee. 30. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that the Managing Committee despite specific directions of the Department to pay the subsistence allowance, to enable the employees to participate in an enquiry had disregarded their direction and had refused to pay the employees any subsistence allowance. In fact, it is highlighted that the Management had challenged the direction given by the Department to pay the subsistence allowance by filing writ petition in W.P.No.52011/2016 and despite the dismissal of this writ petition on 26.10.2016 in which a clear observation was made by this Court that the Management was legally bound to pay the subsistence allowances, the subsistence allowances were not paid. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 31. Learned counsel also pointed out that the request of the Management to impose a punishment was specifically refused by the Government by its endorsement dated 14.09.2017, and yet the Management had proceeded to pass an order of termination. 32. It is also sought to argued that, every attempt was made by the Management to keep the employees away from the institution and the Management had gone to the extent of filing a suit for injunction and had secured an injunction to restrain the employees from attending the institution and they had also threatened the Department that they were in contempt of the Court’s order for insisting upon the employees to be reinstated. 33. As already observed, it is necessary under the Rules for the Director to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and it is also necessary that the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER Enquiry Officer so appointed should conduct an enquiry and submit the Report to the Director. The Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the Management did not secure the prior approval of the Department for conducting an enquiry and it is admittedly not the case of Management that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Director. 34. In fact, it is the case of the Management that they had made a request for appointing an Enquiry Officer and despite remittance of the requisite fee, the Director had not appointed the Enquiry Officer. It is therefore clear that there was a clear breach of the statutory Rule, which mandated that the Enquiry Officer would have to be necessarily appointed by the Director of the Board. 35. If the Director of the Board had not appointed the Enquiry Officer, it follows that any enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the managing - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER committee would be non-est and, therefore, be without any significance. 36. As already stated above, the proviso to Rule 28(1) makes it clear that no penalty can be imposed by the managing committee unless the Director has granted his prior approval. The employees have produced the endorsement dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure – R7) which reads as follows: “1. ²æà ©¢gÁA©PÁ «zÁå¸ÀA¸ÉÜ(j), w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ. F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À, ºÉÆ£ÁߪÀ½îAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ ²æé¢gÁA©PÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀiÁ£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw ¨sÁgÀw JA.¹, ¹.¹.n, ²æà ®PÀëäAiÀÄå, ©.ºÉZï. ²æà £ÀAdAiÀÄå « ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà £ÁUÀgÁdÄ, JA.¹. r zÀeÉð £ËPÀgÀgÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ d£À DgÉÆævÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁj ªÀiÁr CªÀjAzÀ °TvÀ GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è£À AiÀiÁªÀ - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¥Àà®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«gÀzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ DgÉÆævÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÁ¬Äݹj, ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛUÉƽ¸À®Ä E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÀÄwUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 2. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀǪÀð ²PÀët (ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ, £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ, DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄzÁ£À EvÀgÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2006gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 21(7)gÀAvÉ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛUÉƽ¹zÀ £Á®ÄÌ d£À ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀjUÉ fêÀ£ÁzsÁgÀ ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÉà ¨sÀj¹. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á®ÄÌ d£À DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÁV DgÉÆÃ¥À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (C£ÀħAzsÀ-1 jAzÀ 4gÀªÀgÉUÉ) vÀAiÀiÁj¹ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄwUÉ ¸À°è¹ C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR-1gÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 3. FVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ºÁUÀÆ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹, ²æêÀÄw ¨sÁgÀw JA.¹, - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER ¹.¹.n. ²æà ®PÀëäAiÀÄå, ©.ºÉZï, ²æà £ÀAdAiÀÄå «. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà £ÁUÀgÁdÄ, JA.¹, r zÀeÉð £ËPÀgÀgÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è £Á®ÄÌ d£À ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¸Á©üÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¹gÀÄwÛj. 4. C®èzÉà PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀǪÀð ²PÀët (ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ, £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ, DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄzÁ£À EvÀgÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2006gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 30(3)gÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-2016jAzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£É «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆÃj ¢£ÁAPÀ 31- 12-2016gÀ°è ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ f¯Áè G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR-2gÀ°è F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĪÀÄwUÉ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 5. F ªÉÄð£À ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À DzsÀj¹ ²æà ©¢gÁA©PÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀǪÀð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, ºÉÆ£ÀߪÀ½î, w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ. F PÁ¯ÉÃf£À £Á®ÄÌ d£À ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÁV E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ G¯ÉèÃR-1gÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj PÁ¯ÉÃf£À DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà G®èAX¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁzÀ PÁgÀt, G¯ÉèÃR-1gÀ°è F PÁ¯ÉÃf£À DgÉÆævÀ £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¨sÁgÀw JA.¹. ¹.¹.n, ²æà ®PÀëäAiÀÄå, ©.ºÉZï, ²æà £ÀAdAiÀÄå «. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà £ÁUÀgÁdÄ, JA.¹. r zÀeÉð £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁr E¯ÁSÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß M¥ÀàzÉà E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¹zÉ.” 37. As could be seen from the above, the Government has observed that, even though, the Government had suggested that the Management to pay the subsistence allowance, obtain their permission and then conduct an enquiry, the same had been disregarded. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 38. The Government has also observed that, for the breach of any of the Rules, an enquiry had to be conducted and an Enquiry Report was also required to be submitted that the guilt of the employees have been established. 39. It is also noticed by the Government that the Management had already taken a decision to terminate the employees on 31.12.2016 and had only thereafter submitted the proposal for approval. This singular conduct of the Management, by itself, clearly establishes that the Managing committee was trying to bypass the Director and was trying to pass an order of dismissal without the concurrence of the Department, which incidentally, was paying the salaries to the employees. 40. It is to be ultimately noticed that the Government specifically refused to accord permission to the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER managing committee to dismiss the employees from service. 41. It is therefore clear that the order of dismissal passed by the managing committee would be illegal since, it was in gross violation of Rule 28(1). The Tribunal, in my view, has correctly come to the conclusion that, when the Enquiry Officer was not appointed by the Director and as the penalty was imposed without the approval of the Director, it was obvious that the entire process including the order of dismissal would be illegal. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the order and directed the reinstatement along with arrears and salary and also all consequential benefits. 42. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which warrants interference. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER 43. Having regard to the fact that the Managing committee, despite a specific direction by the department to pay the subsistence allowance, chose not to pay the subsistence allowance and, thereafter, despite a positive direction passed by this Court in W.P.No.52011/2016 to pay the subsistence allowance had chosen to defy both the Government as well as this Court and had refused to pay the subsistence allowance, it is clear that it does not deserve the exercise of any discretion. 44. In my view, in the light of such an attitude executed by the managing committee against the employees, and taking into consideration that the Management had gone to the extent of instituting a suit for an injunction to restrain the employees from attending the institution, it is clear that the Management has adopted every possible means to keep the employees at bay. This approach of the Management deserves to be deprecated, more so, when the Management - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:8865 WP No. 22576 of 2019 C/W WP No. 22573 of 2019 WP No. 22574 of 2019 AND 1 OTHER has chosen to disregard an order of this Court in directing it to pay the subsistence allowance. 45. In my view, therefore, the order of the Tribunal to pay arrears of salary is also justified. 46. All these writ petitions are therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable to each of the employees. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100