- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103159 OF 2025 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 103162 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 103163 OF 2025 IN W.P.NO.103159/2025: BETWEEN: 1. VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.A.SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: G. SHIVESHWARA GOUDA S/O. B. V. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, SRI VASAVI HIGH SCHOOL, BALLARI R/O: OPP BKS HOSPITAL, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, BALLARI – 583 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MA (EAT) NO.2/2021 BY THE PRINCIPLE VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 12:09:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI DATED 10/12/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., IN W.P.NO.103162/2025: BETWEEN: 1. VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. VASANT EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.A.SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G. TARAMATHI W/O. LATE Y DHANANJAYULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O: C/O. PRASAD GOTGUNTI, SRI LAKSHMI GENERAL STORE, SUNKANNANAVARA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, DHARWAD – 580 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MA (EAT ) NO. 3/2021 BY THE PRINCIPLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI DATED 10/12/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 IN W.P.NO.103163/2025: BETWEEN: 1. VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.A.SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: FRANCIS LAZAR S/O. H. SHEELAPPA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: DRAWING MASTER, SRI VASAVI HIGH SCHOOL, BALLARI A UNIT OF SRI VASAVI EDUCATION TRUST, BALLARI, R/O H NO E W S 620, NETAJI NAGAR, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MA (EAT ) NO. 1/2021 BY THE PRINCIPLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI DATED 10/12/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners in all these cases are the Educational Institution. The challenge in each case is to the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal concerning three different employees. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. S.A. Sandur for Sri. K.L. Patil and the learned counsel Sri. Vyas Desai representing the respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, I deem it appropriate to notice the facts obtained in Writ Petition No.103159/2025. 4. Facts in brief germane are as follows. The respondents come to be appointed one as Drawing Teacher, other a Physical Education Teacher and a Clerk in the service of the petitioner in the year 1985 onwards. Owing to certain allegations, the respondents were relieved from service. The relieving of them from service on 20.07.2021 and onwards was called in question before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in E.A.T. No.1/2021, challenging the said order. The Educational Appellate Tribunal allows the application and directs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 reinstatement and all back wages, salary and allowances. It is this that is called in question by the management. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Educational Appellate Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order relieving these respondents and further directing the respondents becoming entitled to back wages. 6. The learned counsel Sri. Vyas Desai representing the respondents contends that the respondents were relieved without any rhyme or reason and the Educational Appellate Tribunal has in detail considered the case of these respondents and passed an order which is impugned in the subject petitions. 7. The learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal is unassailable and therefore, this Court should not interfere. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 9. The afore-narrated facts linked in the chain of events and the position of the respondents with the petitioner institution, are all a matter of record. The Educational Appellate Tribunal while allowing the miscellaneous appeals filed by these employees has rendered the following reasons. “26. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, it is very clear that there was misunderstanding between the appellant and Respondents in connection with the Service and the Respondent Institution was not happy with the act of appellant. If the Respondent Management intended to remove the appellant from his Service it is mandatory on the part of the Respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 92 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1983. Though the Respondents have produced plenty of documents, they have not produced any document to show that Enquiry has been held by framing Charges against the appellant. There is no material placed before the Court to show that Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellant calling his explanation about his misconduct or dereliction of duty. 27. In the case of O.S.C Educational Society Vs Emmanuel Lalith Kumar, reported in (2008) 5 KCCR, 3388, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Bangalore), has held as under :- Karnataka Education Act, 1983 Sections 92, 94(1) Teacher or other employee of a private educational institution, shall be dismissed - Denied through any piece of evidence, the allegations of misconduct made against him A major penalty to be valid and effective, has to be preceded by an inquiry, conducted by the management against the delinquent employee, in the manner provided under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 the Act and the Rules and based on the evidence adduced during the course of inquiry and not otherwise Appellant has not informed the respondent of the charges against him and has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the specified charges and has not conducted the inquiry. Without either itself conducting inquiry or through an Inquiry Officer and without any evidence being adduced during the course of the inquiry, the appellant has passed the said Resolution, based on which the order of removal dated 2.4.2007 was issued to the respondent. In view of the prohibition contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 92 of the Act, it was not permissible for the appellant to have imposed the penalty, except after the employee was informed of the allegations, on which, it had proposed to take action and after giving an opportunity to make the representation, which the employee may wish to make and after consideration of such representation only, action could have been taken. For imposing of the major penalty like removal from service, conducting an enquiry stipulated under Section 92 of the Act by following the procedure stipulated under Rule 38 of the Rules, unless the alleged misconduct was unequivocally admitted, is a sine -quo-non. 28. The Act is very clear that, "no teacher or other employee of the private educational institutions shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, except in accordance with the conditions of service governing him". 29. In this case, the Respondents not informed the appellant about the Charges levelled against him and not held Enquiry and no opportunity was given to the appellant to put forth his defence. The solitary provisions of the statute is not complied by the Respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order, which is clear violation of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 principles of law and the principles of natural justice. The Respondent Management has acted arbitrarily and removed the appellant from service. If really there was misconduct on the part of the appellant, then why Charges not framed and why inquiry not held, remained unexplained by the Respondents. 30. The Respondents have made baseless allegations against the appellant stating that they have issued Service / Conduct Certificate to the appellant under the apprehension that if the Service Certificate was not issued he may adopt third degree methods and damage the Institution. This kind of the apprehension of the Respondents is not worthy to accept, because the Respondent Institution is a Registered Educational Institution and it cannot deviate the Law and procedure and take Law into their hands to remove the appellant from his service without holding Enquiry. Mere issuance committed misconduct. Since of Memo is not sufficient to prove that the appellant has the Respondent Management failed to comply the procedure contemplated under Section 92 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the act of removal of the appellant from his Service is illegal and arbitrary, which deserves to be set aside. 31. With the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 20.7.2021 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and rules of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and hence the impugned Order No.GS/SAK/27/2021-22 dated 20.7.2021 deserve tobe set aside. Accordingly I answer Issues No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative, and Issue No.3 and 4 in the Negative. 32. Issue No.5: In view of the findings on Issues No.1 to 4, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement to his Service with effect from 31.7.2021 with all back wages and up to date Salary as prayed for in the petition. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 33. ISSUE NO.6:- In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following: - ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under Section 94(1) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 under No.GS/SAK/27/2021-22 dated 20.7.2021 is hereby set aside. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 Sri Vasavi Education Trust (R), Ballari represented by General Secretary and Chairman are hereby directed to reinstate the appellant to his Service with effect from 31.7.2021 and to pay all back wages and up to date Salary and allowances in accordance with the Scale.” 10. The Educational Appellate Tribunal holds that the procedure contemplated under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act is not followed and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. The issue is whether non-following of the procedure stipulated under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act would vitiate the proceedings or not is no longer res integra, as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows: xxx - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 11. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench is also the fact that there was no procedure stipulated under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act followed prior to the passage of the impugned order. The order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal would not warrant any interference. 12. The Tribunal has directed reinstatement into service. All the respondents have attained the age of superannuation as on today. Therefore, there can be no question of reinstatement of those respondents into the service of the management but the respondents would become entitled to all other benefits that is granted by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. But, the petitioners admittedly have not worked. Therefore, to balance the rights of the employee and the employer and not to mulct the petitioner institution with complete back wages, I deem it appropriate to modify that order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal insofar as it directs 100% back wages to that of 75%. 13. Except the said modification, the petitions do not deserve any entertainment, in the light of the settled principle of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17267 WP No. 103159 of 2025 C/W WP No. 103162 of 2025 WP No. 103163 of 2025 law, as also the admitted fact that procedure under Section 92, of the Karnataka Education Act was not followed. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petitions are allowed in part. ii. Except the modification of 100% back wages that is directed to 75%, no other modification of the impugned order would require. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27