- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 38394 OF 2016 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: 1. SUKRUTHA PRE UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENT COLLEGE DATAGALLI, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE - 570022 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2. SUKRUTHA EDUCATION SOCIETY DATAGALLI, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE - 570022 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN B K., ADVOCATE) AND: B. P. PREMA W/O. SURESH, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT EWS-477, 2ND STAGE, CITB, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND EDUCATION APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN APPEAL EAT NO.9/2012 DATED 31.03.2016 UNDER ANNEX-A; HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT CEASED TO BE EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIOENR INSTITUTION ON AND FROM 11.10.2012 AND THUS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE A TEACHER BY VOLUNTARY ABOUNDING THE POST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed in E.A.T.No. 9 of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysuru. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The respondent was appointed as an Office Assistant, in the petitioners' institution. The respondent was very irregular and habitual absentee. However, the management of the petitioners' institution tolerated the same on humanitarian grounds. The respondent on 23.05.2011 remained absent from the work without any prior permission or intimation and returned on 01.06.2011. She was asked to explain her unauthorized absence. The respondent gave some lame excuses to the petitioners and insisted the petitioners to treat her unauthorised absence as an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 earned leave. It is contended that the respondent is not entitled to an earned leave. The petitioners refused to treat her absence accordingly. The respondent once again remained absent from 02.06.2011, and reported to the duty on 22.08.2011 with a medical certificate that the said absence be treated as medical leave. The petitioners have refused to treat the same as a medical leave. 4. The petitioners received a notice from the educational Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that the respondent came to know that her name is not recommended to the grant in aid post, and in her place one Lakshmipathi was recommended. The respondent approached the petitioners for redressal of her grievance, however they orally told her that she was terminated from the service. The oral order of termination was challenged by the respondent in E.A.T.No.9 of 2012. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 5. The petitioners filed objections contending that the respondent is a habitual absentee without applying leave. It is also contended that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.05.2011. On 01.06.2011, the petitioners have issued a show cause notice. The respondent has a qualification of a nurse, she used to attend that work. She did not report to the work. Thus, the petitioners have terminated the service of the respondent. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal in E.A.T.No.9 of 2012. The tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner in support of her case examined herself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The management examined one witness as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. RW.1 was examined, but RW.1 did not choose to tender himself - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 for cross-examination. Hence, the evidence was discarded by the tribunal. 7. The tribunal, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 9 and 11 in the affirmative, issue No. 10 in the negative, and issue No.12 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed with costs vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 and the oral termination of the respondent from the post of attender in the petitioners' institution was set aside, and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent forthwith in the said post with back wages and all other service benefits attached to the said post from 11.10.2012, and that the petitioners shall comply the order forthwith. 8. The petitioners, aggrieved by the judgment passed in E.A.T.No. 9 of 2012 filed this writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was appointed on a monthly salary of ₹3,000/- and not on a monthly salary of ₹12,000/-. The tribunal committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the respondent was drawing a salary of ₹12,000/-. He also submits that the petitioners have sent a list of teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government and had not recommended the name of the respondent for the grant in aid post. 11. The tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the medical certificates produced by the respondent. The tribunal has not adequately considered the material placed on record. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent led the evidence stating that the respondent was unwell, and she was absent from the duty on a medical ground and to show that she was unwell, she has produced the medical certificate marked as Exs.P4 to P10. The petitioners have examined one witness as RW.1, however he did not choose to tender himself for the cross- examination, and the tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of RW.1, and has passed the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. There is no dispute that the respondent was working as an office assistant from 28.07.1995. The petitioners' institution has secured grant in aid vide - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 order dated 02.03.2009. The respondent remained absent on two occasions on account of ill-health. wherein, the respondent to prove that she was unwell, the respondent has produced the medical certificates, marked as Exs.P4 to P10, wherein the doctor has advised her to take bed rest and which discloses that the respondent was unwell, and she was diagnosed with a thyroid problem, and since 2007 itself she was on medication. In the medical certificate accompanying Ex.P4, the doctor has certified that the respondent was on a treatment from 02.06.2011 to 23.08.2011, and the rest was necessary for her during that period. 15. The petitioners have issued a show cause notice as per Ex.P1, to explain her absence from 23.05.2011 to 01.06.2011. The respondent was unwell and the respondent has replied to the show cause notice as per Ex.P12 along with the representation at Ex.P14 enclosing the copy of medical certificate dated 23.05.2011. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 16. Although the respondent has submitted application for the grant of leave on medical grounds, the petitioners have not passed any order on the application submitted by the respondent, and the Deputy Director of Public Instruction has directed the petitioners to take necessary action in the matter, but the petitioners did not oblige. 17. The tribunal, considering the medical records has held that the respondent was sick and she had applied a leave on medical ground. In Ex.R1, the medical ground of the appellant is undisputed. He did not tender himself for the cross-examination. Admittedly, there is no rebuttal evidence. Therefore the tribunal has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the respondent. Further, the respondent has produced Ex.P2 i.e., the service Register to show that she has drawn last salary of ₹12,000/-. 18. Before terminating the respondent, neither the charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 petitioners have orally terminated the respondent from the service. The order of termination violates the principle of natural justice in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1. The Education Appellate tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Puri Investments vs. M/s Young Friends and Co. and others2, disposed of on 23.02.2022, held that the High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when its findings are perverse i.e., 1. Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or 2. Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or 3. Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. 1 AIR 1978 SC 597 2 Civil Appeal No.1609/2022 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016 20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IAs, if any, would not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV