Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34723 (KAR)

SRI KESHAVAMURTHY R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30339/2024 · 2025-04-25

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30339 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY R S/O. LATE B.M. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.592, 8TH LINK ROAD, LALITHA MAHAL NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT -570 028. ALSO GIVEN THE TEMPORARY ADDRESS AT BENGALURU AT C/O. L. RAMESH NO.5, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS ROAD, OPP. UAS LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 GENERAL SECRETARY KURUNJI BAGH, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574327. 5. KVG POLYTECHNIC (AIDED) KURUJIBAGH, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574327. REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 6. NEHRU SMARAKA VIDYA KENDRA TRUST BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 083. REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, DR. RENUKAPRASAD K.V. 7. SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC JANGALPALYA, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU-560083 REPTD. BY ITS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. P.M.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6, NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.7; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.RPKV/83/2016 DATED 13.02.2016 AND ALSO IN REF.GSO-AOLE/14/2018 DATED 02.03.2018 AT ANNEXURE-K AND R RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondent No.4 in Case No.RPKV/83/2016 dated 13.02.2016 and also in Reference GSO-AOLE/14/2018 dated 02.03.2018 and direct the respondents to release his salary from 01.02.2016 to 12.02.2016 and also to release his service benefits on he attaining the age of superannuation. 2. (i) The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent No.6 had placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry on 13.02.2016. Since the enquiry was not concluded within six months from the date of his suspension and since his representation to revoke the order of suspension was not considered, he filed W.P.No.2271/2022. This Court in terms of an order dated 06.04.2022 directed the respondent No.1 to conclude the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of the said order. (ii) The petitioner contends that the enquiry was not concluded within six months and the respondent No.3 issued a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 direction to the respondent No.4 to conclude the process and submit a report. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 referred the case of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 to take a decision regarding an order of respondent No.4 dated 21.06.2022, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 entertained a review petition No.4/2022 and directed the respondent No.4 to take a decision under Section 41(4) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. However, no order was passed by the respondent No.4. (iii) The petitioner contends that since the order of suspension is passed without seeking permission of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as required under Section 32 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 (for short 'Rules, 2003'), he initiated proceedings before the respondent No.1 by filing appeal No.9/2018. He also filed a revision petition in No.18/2019 and after hearing the appeal and petition on merit, the petitioner was directed either to pursue the remedy of an appeal or review. Accordingly, the review petition was pursued and the respondent No.1 dismissed the same, on the ground that there was a delay of three years in questioning the order of suspension. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 (iv) The petitioner contends that though the respondent No.4 had intimated the petitioner that the management had taken a decision unilaterally to dismiss him from service from 01.03.2018 and that the said order was sent to the respondent No.3 for approval, till date the same is not approved by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner also contends that the order terminating him from service is not furnished to him, therefore he could not file an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act. He therefore contends that the respondent No.4 has not concluded enquiry within six months from the date of suspension and no subsistence allowance is paid, even though it is mandatory upon the part of the respondent No.6 to pay subsistence allowance as per Section 92(3)(b) of the Karnataka Education Act. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order dismissing him from service as well as the communication addressed to him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order dismissing the petitioner is not approved by the competent authority as required under Rules, 2003, the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the order of dismissal before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 however contends that the respondent No.6 was bound to pay the subsistence allowance and that the respondent No.2 vide his order dated 21.06.2022 had directed the respondent No.6 to pay the subsistence allowance. He contends that following this, the respondent No.1 had passed an order directing the respondent No.6 to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and to pass a speaking order regarding payment of subsistence allowance. He therefore contends that the respondent No.6 is bound to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.4 and 6. The respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner has belatedly challenged the impugned orders and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is contended that after the petitioner was suspended from service on the ground of misappropriation of Government and college funds, an enquiry was conducted by a retired Principal District and Sessions Judge and the enquiry officer found him guilty of charges and thereafter, the governing council of respondent No.4 has passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service. Therefore, it is contended that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 petitioner instead of filing an appeal before the appropriate Court has rushed to this Court. As regards, the order passed by the State Government, it is contended that the governing council at its meeting held on 30.10.2024 discussed the matter of payment of subsistence allowance and upon noticing the facts and the provisions made in the rules, resolved to hold that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 communicated a speaking order dated 21.12.2024 to the petitioner rejecting his representation. 5. The respondent No.6 has also opposed the writ petition on similar lines and contends that the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal challenging the impugned order and that no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition. However, the respondent No.6 has not disputed the fact that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is not approved by the State Government. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question an order passed by the respondent No.4 dismissing him from service. The respondent No.6 is an institution which is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 admitted to grant-in-aid and therefore, the terms and conditions of service in private aided educational institutions are governed under the Rules, 2003. Rule 32 of the Rules, 2003 deals with the nature of the penalties. A penalty of dismissal from service can be issued only after prior approval by the competent authority which approved the appointment. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that there was a prior approval from the competent authority before issuing an order of dismissal from service. Therefore, the impugned orders are stillborn and cannot be given effect to unless the competent authority approves the order of dismissal. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless the competent authority approves the order of dismissal, the petitioner would not get a cause of action to challenge it before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is bound to challenge the impugned orders before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, does not merit consideration. Be that as it may, the petitioner who was suspended from service on 13.02.2016, attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 petitioner had invited an order at the hands of the respondent No.2 who had directed the respondent No.4 to pass a speaking order regarding claim for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension till the date of superannuation. The respondent No.4 has now passed an order dated 21.12.2024 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for grant of subsistence allowance. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to establish before the competent authority by filing appropriate petition that he was entitled to subsistence allowance and that the grounds urged by the respondent No.4 to deny the payment of subsistence allowance, were false or that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was staying in Mysuru, he was entitled to claim the subsistence allowance. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of dismissal after the competent authority approves the order of dismissal. In so far as the order passed by the respondent No.4 refusing to grant subsistence allowance, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority challenging the order passed by the respondent No.4. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17257 WP No. 30339 of 2024 9. If an appeal or a petition is filed before the competent authority, the authority shall endeavour to consider the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of filing the petition. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5