- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE PRESIDENT SRI GURUMALLESHWARA MAHAVIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD) DEVANUR GRAMA, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119. 2. THE SECRETARY SRI GURUMALLESHWARA MAHAVIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD) DEVANUR GRAMA, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SRI GURUMALLESHWARA POLYTECHNIC DEVANUR, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: GURUSHANTHAMURTHY S S/O SUBBAPPA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT KUNTHUR, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH H.E, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.18752/2011 DATED 05/10/2023, AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, AND AWARD COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18752/2011 disposing of the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent being aggrieved by his illegal termination has approached the Educational Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed by observing that the respondent had been terminated without providing any opportunity and thus he was entitled - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 for reinstatement with continuity of service and with back- wages and also directed the appellants to pay Rs.43,945/- to the respondent. Against which, the appellants preferred W.P.No.18752/2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has confirmed the reinstatement of the respondent with 10% backwages by construing the salary of the respondent as Rs.7,050/-. 3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Anil Kumar S. for the appellants and learned counsel Sri Ramesha H.E., for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent has misappropriated the funds of the appellant-institution and also the funds belonging to the hostel run by the institution while working as a Manager of the said institution. As such, after an enquiry, the respondent's services were terminated. The appellant- institution, being a polytechnic and ITI, is governed by the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for brevity, "the 1987 Act") and as such, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for brevity, "the 1983 Act") are not applicable and the very order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Further, for the misappropriation of the funds of the institution, the institution has rightly terminated the respondent from service. 5. It was also contended that the evidence led by the appellant-institution before the Tribunal also supports the contentions raised by the appellant-institution. In such circumstances, both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge misread the facts and evidence on record and passed the impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record has rightly set aside the order of termination passed by the appellants as the charges leveled against the respondent have not been proved as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 per law. Further, the respondent's services were terminated by the appellant-institution without providing him any opportunity to defend himself, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have rightly set aside the order of termination and reinstated the respondent with backwages as aforesaid. Hence, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have perused the order of the Tribunal so also the order of the learned Single Judge and also the records. 8. As regards the contention of the appellant- institution that the institution, being polytechnic and ITI, is governed by the provisions of the 1987 Act and as such, the provisions of the 1983 Act are not applicable is concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D. JEEVAGAN V. THE PRINCIPAL, MEI POLYTECHNIC AND - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 OTHERS - ILR 2007 KAR 4870 has held that since the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations do not provide for any statutory regulations to resolve disputes of the employees, such aggrieved employees of an institution affiliated to the AICTE would have a right to approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal. 9. The appointment of the respondent in the appellant-institution and his tenure in the institution from 2002 to 2009 are not disputed. Further, the Tribunal has returned a clear finding that the services of the respondent were terminated without holding an enquiry and without providing any opportunity to defend himself. The finding that the employee was required to be reinstated was affirmed by the learned Single Judge with 10% backwages construing his pay as Rs.7,050/-. Having considered the contentions advanced, we find no error or illegality either in the order of the Tribunal or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB WA No. 1509 of 2023 10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the order of the Tribunal by reinstating the respondent with 10% backwages construing his salary as Rs.7,050/-. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27