The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval from the Director of Collegiate Education before imposing punishment, as mandated by the Karnataka Private educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975.

V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) WHEN this revision petition came up for admission Sri B. B. Bajentri, learned Advocate, took notice on behalf of the respondent. It was agreed that the civil revision petition itself can be disposed off.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein was working as a Second Division Clerk in the petitioner-institution. On certain alleged charge of misappropriation disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry was conducted by the Principal of Seshadripuram evening Law College. After enquiry the worker was found guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report his services were terminated. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act' ). Several contentions were urged on the merits of the case as well. The Appellate Authority was mainly impressed by the circumstances that there were two sets of charges framed against the worker; one by the Committee and the other by the enquiry Officer; that the termination order had not been approved by the Director of Collegiate Education; that the president of the Committee had no power to impose the punishment and the Principal who was the complainant himself had conducted the enquiry thereby combining the role of complainant and the Judge. On these grounds it set aside the order of dismissal and called upon the management to reinstate the worker. It is this order that is challenged before this Court by the management.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner in detail as also Sri B. B. Bajentri, learned Counsel for the respondent as well. In the light of the order proposed to be passed herein it is not proper for this Court to discuss on the merits of the case. The order passed by the appellate Authority needs to be set aside and remitted for fresh disposal for the following reasons.

( 4 ) AS regards the finding of the Tribunal that two sets of charges framed against the worker and the same is illegal is not of much consequence. The first charge itself was issued by the committee of the management. The second charge was issued by the Enquiry Officer by elaborating the first charge itself in almost similar manner. The second charge issued by the Enquiry officer contained the same set of allegations and charges contained in the first set of charges. The difference is that the second set of charges has rearranged the first set of charges. This does not vitiate the enquiry and the defect if any does not go to the root of the matter. As to the second issue of the matter is concerned Sri B. B. Bajentri, learned Counsel submitted that the management has failed to secure approval from the Director for dismissal and the request made was declined. This question requires more consideration and would be referred to later. The third objection raised by the Tribunal is that the President has no power to impose the punishment. A reading of the last portion of the order makes it clear that the President has not imposed the punishment. The order in question reads as follows:"in exercise of the powers and in accordance with Section 6 (1) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 read with Rule 10 (vii), rule 17 and Rule 18 of the Karnataka Private Educational institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules 1978, and in the light of the above findings and conclusions based on evidence, and agreeing with the same, the Managing Committee which had earlier proposed the penalty of removal from service, has resolved to compulsorily retire Sri H. N. Channaiah, s. D. A. , Pre-University College for Women, M. L. A. , bangalore, to take effect from the date of the communication of this order and he is deemed to have been relieved of his duties with effect from the date of receipt of this order by the delinquent official. He will be entitled to such terminal benefits which are available as per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document