- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 5450 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KUMAR @ SHIVAKUMAR S/O HONNAGALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDI TEACHER, SRI GANGADHARESHWARA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, B.K.ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562120 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NEAR RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) 2ND FLOOR, PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511 4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BEO OFFICE MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511 5. SRI GANGADHARESHWARA EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (R) KOUTHAMARANAHALLI, HARALOOR POST, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 582104 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 6. SRI GANGADHARESHWAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 B.K.ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI V.K.SURESH, ADV. FOR R5 & R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE NOTICE DTD 05.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R5 IN NO.GA.VI.SAM/45/2010-11 IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 13.06.2023 PASSED BY THE R3 IN NO.ANU1/ANUDAANITHASHAAKHE/DOORU/01/2018- 19/750/23/24 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 30.08.2023 PASSED BY THE R3 IN NO.ANU1/ANUDAANITHASHAAKHE/DOORU/01/2018 19/1406/2/9/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO SERVICE AND RELEASE THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: 1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash the office notice dated 05.05.2022 passed by the 5th respondent in No.Ga.Vi.Sam/45/2010-11 in dismissing the petitioner from service vide Annexure-A. 2) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the endorsement dated 13.06.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent in No.Anu1/Anudaanithashaakhe/Dooru/01/2018- 19/750/23/24 vide Annexure-B. 3) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the endorsement dated 30.08.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent in No.Anu1/Anudaanithashaakhe/Dooru/01/2018/19/ 1406/2/9/2023 vide Annexure-C, and 4) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Hindi teacher in 2003 in respondent No.6-School established by respondent No.5. One Narayana, retired Lecturer of Kottagarahalli Taluk gave a complaints to respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in C.C.No.279/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC. Based on the aforesaid complaints, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 07.01.2012 directing respondent No.6 to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. At that point of time, in C.C.No.279/2001, the petitioner was convicted and punished with 2 years 7 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.6,250/- vide order dated 13.01.2011. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.279/2001, preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 on the file of learned District and Sessions - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 Judge, Ramanagara. The learned District and Sessions Judge, stayed the operation of the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.01.2011. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry continued and Enquiry Officer submitted a report. Respondent No.5 by order dated 13.07.2012 imposed the punishment of permanently withholding two annual increments (with cumulative effect) on this petitioner, taking note of his conviction in a criminal case. The said order of Punishment dated 13.07.2012 has attended a finality. Inspite of conclusion of the departmental enquiry and order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, respondent No.3 at the persistence of de-facto complainant, addressed the letter dated 07.08.2012 and a notice dated 13.12.2012, vide Annexures 'H' and 'J' respectively. Consequently, respondent No.5 vide order dated 07.01.2013 passed an order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 07.01.2013, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.8991/2013. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal from service vide order dated 12.07.2017. In the meanwhile, so far as the criminal case is concerned, the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 and Criminal Appeal No.28/2011 was dismissed the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 and slightly enhance the sentence by partly allowing the State Appeal, filed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2011 and confirmed the order of conviction by common judgment dated 18.04.2016. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2011, preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.665/2016 and connected matter. This Court, vide order dated 13.04.2023, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition in part. Finally, on 11.09.2021, respondent No.5 temporarily reinstated the petitioner to service awaiting the decision of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the petitioner reported to the duty on 14.09.2021 and was discharging his service as Hindi teacher. The de-facto complainant, who is having a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 personal grudge, did not stop there. He kept on following up with the authorities and ensured that the petitioner would be relieved from service. 3. Respondent No.3 playing to the tune of an outsider, contrary to the order passed this Court in W.P.No.8991/2013, issued an endorsement that the case of the petitioner for reinstatement cannot be considered. Respondent No.5 passed an order dated 05.05.2022 to relieve the petitioner from service. Meanwhile, the revision petition was allowed in part and order of conviction was set aside for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, but convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and reduced the sentence from imprisonment to only payment of fine vide judgment dated 13.04.2023. On the basis of the judgment passed in Criminal Revision petition, the petitioner requested the respondent No.5 to reinstate the petitioner into service. Respondent No.5 taking note of the judgment passed in Criminal Revision petition, refused to reinstate the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 petitioner. The petitioner once again submitted a representation. The respondent-authority rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondent-authority, filed this writ petition. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections contending that since the first punishment was without consent of the department, was not a suitable punishment for the offence, and second punishment from the duty is imposed. Thus, the imposition of the penalty is in accordance with the Government circular dated 14.09.2001 and it is contended that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Hence, the impugned endorsements issued by the respondents are just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.5 filed a statement of objections reiterating the statement of objections filed by the State. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners aggrieved by the notice passed by respondent No.3 dated 13.12.2012 preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.8991/2013. He submits that this Court, vide order dated 12.07.2017 allowed the writ petition and set aside the notice dated 13.12.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, preferred an appeal before the District and Session Judge and the State also preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence. He submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the State was allowed and the sentence was enhanced. He submits that the petitioner aggrieved by the common - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011, preferred the Criminal Revision Petition before this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition No.665/2016 and connected matters, and this Court vide judgment dated 13.04.2023 allowed the revision petition-in-part and set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and the accused was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC, and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 506 of the IPC, and the order of sentence was modified by imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. He submits that the order of punishment was passed first. He cannot be punished for the same offence and for the same charges. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. P. SOUPRAMANIANE reported in AIR 2019 SC 2187. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 506 of the IPC. In view of the judgment passed in the Criminal Revision Petition, respondent No.5 has rightly terminated the petitioner from service and the action of respondent No.5 in terminating the petitioner from service is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 adopt the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 11. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as Hindi teacher in respondent No.5-Institution. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC in C.C.No.279/2001. One Narayana gave a complaint to respondent No.3 to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Pursuant to the complaint filed by Narayana, respondent No.3 appointed an Enquiry Officer and issued an article of charges and enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner's are proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment withholding two annual increment (with cumulative effect), vide order dated 13.07.2012, and it has attained finality. Meanwhile, C.C.No.279/2001 was disposed off, wherein - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 the petitioner was convicted and punished with 2 years 7 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.6,250/- vide judgment and the conviction order dated 13.01.2011. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of conviction, preferred a Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 and the State also preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.28/2011 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. Learned District judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order of conviction by common judgment dated 18.04.2016 and the District Court has slightly enhanced the sentence. The petitioner, aggrieved by the common judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.10/2011 and 28/2011 preferred a Criminal Revision Petition.665/2016 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.04.2023, allowed the Criminal Revision petition-in-part and modified the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the trial Court and punished the petitioner for - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 the offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court was confirmed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 506 and the order of sentence for the said offence was modified and reduced to the payment of fine imposed by the trial Court and default sentence was ordered by the trial Court remains unaltered, and the judgment and order of conviction passed against the accused by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, was set aside and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. After the disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents requesting for reinstatement. The respondents instead of reinstating the petitioner, have passed an order of punishment i.e., dismissal from service only on the basis that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 427 and 506 of the IPC and the Government has issued an endorsements vide Annexures - B and C on the ground that the order of dismissal passed by respondent No.5 is just and proper. The respondents without considering that already the order of punishment was passed on 13.07.2012 and the petitioner cannot be punished for the same offence, passing an order of dismissal from service. The dismissal order passed to the respondent is contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P No.8991/2013. The offences alleged against the petitioner, which involves moral turpitude. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 9, which reads as follows: 9. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, NDPS Act etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from one from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that injuries caused to the victim were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. 12. In the instant case, this Court while disposing of the Criminal Revision petition, has reported its findings at para No.36 of Crl.R.P.No.665/2016 and connected matters, which reads as follows: 36. The material on record would go to show that the incident is of the year 2001 and 22 years - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 have lapsed from the date of incident. The wound certificates at Exs.P-16 & P-18 discloses that the injuries suffered by PW-1 & PW-4, respectively, are simple in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the antecedents of the accused, age of the incident, the nature of incident and the injuries suffered by PWs-1 & 4 in the said incident and also considering the fact that the accused have faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for the last 22 years, I am of the considered view that it may not be necessary to sentence the accused with imprisonment and if the sentence imposed on the accused for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 & 506 IPC is modified and reduced to payment of fine, the same would serve the ends of justice." 13. Respondent No.5 having already passed an order of punishment dated 13.07.2022, the petitioner cannot be punished for the second time on the same charges. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.665/2016 has reduced the punishment from sentence to the payment of fine on the ground that the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 petitioner has faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for more than 22 years. 14. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.8991/2013, set aside the notice dated 13.12.2012 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-J, by observing in paragraph No.4 that, once the power is exercised under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, it is not open for the Institution to invoke the same provision to impose further punishment on the same set of charges, by dismissing the petitioner. The impugned action of the respondent is arbitrary and contrary to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 15. Further, held in paragraph No.8 that "a person can be punished at once for the offences committed by him not twice for the same offences." Though there is an order by this Court, the respondents committed the same mistake by passing the impugned office notice dated 05.05.2022 vide Annexure-A. Thus, without considering - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 the said aspect, the respondents have committed an error in passing the impugned notice, rejecting the reinstatement of the petitioners vide Annexure-A. Respondent No.3 has also committed an error in issuing the endorsements vide Annexure B and C. 16. In view of the above discussion and also considering the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (Supra), I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The office notice dated 05.05.2022 passed by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-A, the endorsements dated 13.06.2023 and 30.08.2023 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexures B and C respectively are hereby set aside. iii. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48865 WP No. 5450 of 2024 with continuity of service within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. iv. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB