- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100310 OF 2023 BETWEEN: LALITABAI M.C., W/O DR.RAMESH NAIK D.J, AGE: YEARS, OCC.: ASST. TEACHER IN MATHEMATICS, R/O. SHRI. GAJANANA HIGH SCHOOL MEDUR, C/O. MAHESH ANANDAPPA TIPPANNANAVAR, JANATH PLOT, NEAR GOT HOSPITAL, MEDUR, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. - COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. T.M. NADAF AND KUM. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. JAYASHREE SHINTRE, K.A.S., AGE: 38 YEARS, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580011. 3. GIRISH L. PADAKI, AGE: 56 YEARS, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 4. N.SHRIDHAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, HIREKERUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 5. SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA SHIRAGAMBI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDAK SANGHA @ MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI-581210. 5.A THE STATE OF KARANTAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 6. SUBHASH MAHADEV SUTHKOTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (SECRETARY OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 7. SHRI. NEELAPPA BADDAPPA KOPPAD, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 8. SHRI BASALINGAPPA BHARAMGOUDA BALLER, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 9. SHRI SHIVAYOGI PARAMASHIVAYYA RADHYAMATHA, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 10. SHRI KAREGOUD BHARAMAGOUDA HINDADAHALLI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 11. SHRI BASAVANEPPA SHANKRAPPA KOLAMBI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 12. SHRI. VENKATESH LAXMAN DIKSHIT, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR) R/O. MASUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 13. SHRI RAMESHGOUDA BHARAMAGOUDA SANNAGOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 14. SHRI PRABHUSANKAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. ANAGRGATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 15. SHRI GURUMURTEPPA MURGEPPA MARWALLI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 16. SHRI DANAPPA MURUDEPPA HAKRI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, (MEMBER OF SHRI. VINAYAKA VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR), R/O. MEDUR VILLAGE, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. - ACCUSED (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR A1; SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR A5; SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR A6-A16) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 100613/2023 (S-DIS) & ETC. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) The complainant alleges disobedience by the sixth to sixteenth respondent, and the alleged disobedience is of the directions by the writ Court in W.P. No. 100613/2023. The writ Court’s direction is a combined direction viz., direction: [a] to the State Government to conclude the revision proceedings in R.P. No. 35/2021 filed by the complainant under Karnataka Education Act, 1993 within of four months and [b] to M/s Vinayaka Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, Medur village, Rattehalli Taluk, Haveri District not to precipitate in the meantime. The writ Court has also reserved liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned Block Education Officer for claim for subsistence allowance. 2. The complainant initially, apart from the officers, arrayed the fifth respondent [the President of the Institution] as a respondent. This Court has framed charges against the fifth respondent, but later an application is filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 to implead all the Managing Committee Members of the Institution. This application is allowed, and as such all the committee members are arrayed as respondents. This Court, on the previous hearing date, has directed the Managing Committee Members to be present. 3. Sri S.G. Kadadakatti, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent - the President of the Institution, has handed over a cheque bearing No. 211302 dated 25.01.2025 drawn on Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Tippalkoppa Branch, Rattihalli for a sum of Rs.74,332/- drawn in favour of the complainant. The questions for consideration are whether the proceedings must be continued against the fifth respondent in terms of the charge already framed and whether charges must be framed against the other respondents. These questions are considered in the light of this tender, which is with the assurance that the cheque will not be returned for any reason by the banker. 4. The controversy is essentially because the complainant, who was working as a Teacher, is removed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 from service on the ground of unauthorized absence with the complainant contending that her absence could not be treated accordingly as she was entitled for maternity leave and she had applied before being on leave. In fact, the complainant’s case is that she has delivered a child after she applied for leave, and that she was in confinement for six months but she has reported to duty immediately thereafter. 5. The complainant has filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 100613/2023 for mandamus to the Institution to consider her request for reinstatement in terms of the interim order passed in R.P. No. 35/2021. The writ petition in W.P. No. 100613/2023 is disposed of on 20.02.2023 with the directions as aforesaid. The complainant alleges that she is issued a notice of enquiry, which is completed on 11.03.2023, despite the writ Court’s direction on 20.02.2023, and she is served with the dismissal order on 09.09.2023. According to the complainant, proceedings could not have been begun much less she be served with the dismissal order on 09.09.2023 in view of the directions. However, what remains undisputed is that the R.P. No. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 35/2023, which was pending as on the date of the writ Court’s order and the order of dismissal, is decided on 16.10.2025 confirming the complainant’s removal from the service. 6. According to the complainant, she has not challenged the said order under the bona fide belief that she was effectively prosecuting the present complaint, but she has now filed W.P. No. 100488/2025 calling in question both the initial and subsequent orders, including the order dated 16.10.2023. The settled law is that there must be no effort to atone when there is a hint of deliberate disobedience. This Court, with the Institution tendering a sum of Rs.74,332/- as the arrears payable as on 16.10.2024, is of the view that there is an effort to atone for any disobedience. Further, neither the merits of the dismissal of the revision petition dated 11.03.2023 nor the merits of the dismissal order dated 09.09.2023 can be examined in the present proceedings. These must be examined in the now instituted petition in W.P. No. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1467-DB CCC No. 100310 of 2023 100488/2025. As such, the complaint must be closed discharging the fifth respondent. 7. At this stage, Sri T.M. Nadaf, the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the sum of Rs.74,332/- would not be in full and final settlement of the complainant even if dismissal were to prevail, and the learned counsel submits that the complainant would be entitled to almost double this amount. This Court is of the view that is also an aspect that must fall for consideration in W.P. No. 100488/2025. Therefore, subject to all just exceptions, including the liberty to contend that any delay in filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 100488/2025 must be considered favorably because the complainant has prosecuted this complaint, the complaint is closed discharging the fifth respondent. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1