- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 3908 OF 2020 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU. 3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MADUVANAHALLI ROAD, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA) AND: S.K. RAMESH, S/O S.N. KEMPPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 GOVERNMENT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, GERADADA VILLAGE, MUNGENAHALLI POST, HOSA AGRAHAHARA POST, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. RESIDENT OF NO.17, C/O NARANASWAMY, L.I.G.I, VIJANAGARA LAYOUT, K R NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.5910-5911/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (ANNX-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners-State Authorities in Education Department are before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question order dated 23.01.2019 in Application Nos.5910 & 5911/2010, where under the Tribunal passed the following: "ORDER: (i) Application stands allowed to the limited extent indicated above only. (ii) Applicant is at liberty to challenge the penalty order passed against him as per order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore, if he is advised to do so. (iii) In so far as the back wages is concerned, he is entitled for back wages from 02.1.2008 till he was reinstated. (iv) Necessary monetary benefits shall be granted to the applicant as indicated above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 2. Heard learned AGA Sri S.R.Khamroz Khan for the petitioners and there is no representation for the respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 3. Brief facts of the case are that: The respondent was working as Primary school teacher and while he was working as such, by judgment dated 09.10.2003 in S.C.No.178/2003, the respondent was convicted for the charges under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Against the said conviction and sentence, the respondent filed Crl.A.No.1633/2005. The said criminal appeal was allowed by judgment dated 19.12.2007 and the respondent was acquitted. Immediately on his acquittal, the respondent said to have made representations dated 25.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 requesting the petitioners' Authorities to reinstate him into service. The respondent was reinstated by Memorandum dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure-A7). Thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal in the above stated application with a prayer to regularize the period during which he was out of service and to treat the said period as compulsory waiting period and grant him all consequential benefits with interest at 12% p.a. 4. The Tribunal, on considering the rival contentions of the parties, under impugned order passed the above extracted order, granted back wages from 02.01.2008 till the date - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 reinstatement. Questioning the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned AGA, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in granting back wages from the date of representation i.e., 02.01.2008 in view of the fact that under order dated 12.11.2010, the respondent was imposed with punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. 6. On hearing the learned AGA and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. It is an admitted fact that under judgment dated 09.10.2003 in S.C.No.178/2003, the respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Against which, the respondent filed Crl.A.No.1633/2005, which was allowed by judgment dated 19.12.2007 and the respondent was acquitted. Thereafter, the respondent made representations dated 25.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 requesting the petitioners/Authorities to reinstate him into service. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 Considering the said representations and the acquittal order, the petitioners/Authorities ordered for reinstatement of the respondent on 11.08.2008. The Tribunal under impugned order placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and another vs. Mohammed Abdul Rahim [(2013) (11) SCC 67] observed that the respondent would be entitled for back wages and consequential benefits from the date of demand for reinstatement on acquittal in criminal case. 8. In the instant case, the respondent is acquitted of the charges by judgment dated 19.12.2007 in Crl.A.No.1633/2005 and demanded reinstatement by representation dated 02.01.2008. Thus, we do not find any error or illegality in the Tribunal's order directing back wages from 02.01.2008 from the date of demand for reinstatement till the respondent's reinstatement on 22.10.2008. 9. Learned AGA's contention that the respondent would not be entitled for any benefit in view of the pendency of Departmental Enquiry is unsustainable. The pending Departmental Enquiry was for some other misconduct i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22681-DB WP No. 3908 of 2020 misbehaviour with lady colleague. The said Departmental Enquiry is nothing to do with the acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted liberty to the respondent to challenge the said order of penalty dated 12.11.2010. 10. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK