Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 436
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Dharwad)
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K N KESHAVANARAYANA
Phalahara Shivayogishwara, By Its President
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary, Bangalore & Others
WRIT APPEAL NO.914 of 2008(S-RES)
Decided on : 03-07-2009
For the Petitioner:P S Rajagopal, Sr. Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following due procedure and statutory remedies, and the court's ruling that the State Government's actions amounted to a trampling of the rule of law.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Karnataka Education Act - Section 131, Section 130 - Rule 17(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 - The court quashed the order of the State Government exercising powers under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, setting aside the penalty imposed by the management on an employee and directing reinstatement. The court held that the State Government lacked jurisdiction to stay the enquiry proceedings initiated by the private management and to exercise appellate powers beyond its statutory authority. The court also found the direction issued by the Commissioner for Pre-University Education Board to be without jurisdiction as it was based on rules that were no longer in force. The court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and statutory remedies, and ruled that the State Government's actions amounted to a trampling of the rule of law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Charitable Trust managing educational institutions, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent, an employee, resulting in a penalty of reducing the rank from Principal to Lecturer. The State Government, purporting to exercise powers under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, set aside the penalty and directed reinstatement of the employee, along with other directions to the management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government's orders were without jurisdiction and vitiated by malafide exercise of power, and that the direction issued by the Commissioner for Pre-University Education Board was based on rules that were no longer in force. The court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and statutory remedies, and ruled that the State Government's actions amounted to a trampling of the rule of law.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the State Government to stay the enquiry proceedings initiated by the private management, exercise appellate powers beyond its statutory authority, and issue directions based on rules that were no longer in force.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government lacked jurisdiction to stay the enquiry proceedings initiated by the private management and to exercise appellate powers beyond its statutory authority. The court also found the direction issued by the Commissioner for Pre-University Education Board to be without jurisdiction as it was based on rules that were no longer in force. The court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and statutory remedies, and ruled that the State Government's actions amounted to a trampling of the rule of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the State Government exercising powers under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, setting aside the penalty imposed by the management on an employee and directing reinstatement. The court allowed the writ petition in its entirety, but made it clear that the employee could avail of such remedies as are available to him in law as against the order of penalty imposed by the management.
1. This writ appeal is by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11994/2006, being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition on 29.5.2008 whereunder, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition ,but in part.
2. Writ petitioner is a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is managing several educational institutions starting from Primary Schools, High Schools, Pre-University Colleges, Industrial Training Institutes etc.,
3. Sri Phalahara Shivayogishwara Samyuktha Padavi Poorva College, Manihal-Sureban, Ramdurga Taluk, Belgaum District, is one such educational institution imparting education to students in Pre-University Course.
4. 5th respondent in this appeal also the 5th respondent in the writ petition was working as a Principal at this institution had been promoted to this post in the year 1992.
5. against this employee, the Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issue of a charge memo on 29.10.2004. This charge memo had been replied by the employee on 25.11.2004 and the management, being not satisfied with the same, appointed an enquiry committee on 14.3.2006, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 31.5.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-T to the writ petition).
6. This order imposing the penalty of reducing the rank of the employee from Principal to the lower rank of a Lecturer and had asked the employee to function as a Lecturer thereafter, having been annulled by the State Government at the instance of the employee that is, the Principal of the College, with the State Government purporting to exercise its power under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act (for short ‘the Act’) not only for quashing the order imposing the penalty on the employee, but also for issuing further directions to the management to reinstate the appellant in the post of Principal with immediate effect and to remit to the Government certain amounts said to have been misappropriated which, the Directorate of Pre-University Education, had found the management had misappropriated and to further the recover from a Karnataka lecturer of the institution a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-said to have been illegally drawn by him and to remit it to the account of the Government as per its order dated 21.8.2006, (copy produced as Annexure-2) to the writ petition and the order indicating that, if the management should fail to comply with the directions issued by the Government within a week’s time thereafter, the Department of Pre-University Education may consider initiation of action against the institution as per Rule 12A or 12B of the Grant-in-Aid Code, the same gave cause for the appellant to come up to this Court presenting Writ Petition No.11994/2006.
7. The learned Single Judge, who examined the writ petition, was of the view of that the petitioner-management had acted in a preemptive manner in totally disregarding certain interim directions issued by the Government and also proceeding with the enquiry notwithstanding the same being stayed by the Government and also proceeding with the enquiry notwithstanding the same being stayed by the Government at the instance of the employee in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 131 of the Act and therefore, the management could not have gone on with the enquiry nor could have passed the final order dated 31.5.2006 imposing penalty on the employee and this part of the order passed by the Government did not call for any interference as the State Government was quite justified in passing such an order, but the other part of the order issuing further directions to the management regarding remittance of the so-called misappropriated amount and wrongful disbursement of certain amounts to lecturer in Karnataka being not part of any proceedings before the Government in the petition of the employee under Section 131 of the Act, was not sustainable and therefore, quashed this part of the order containing directi
