Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate who takes notice for respondent No.1 today and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 though served with notice, they remained unrepresented. I have Perused the records.

2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that the petitioner-People’s Education Society and Trust, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum has been running a private unaided Educational Institution in the name and style A.M.Shaikh Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital and running a degree and post graduate course in Homeopathic Sciences in Belgaum City. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were in the employment of the petitioner-Institution in the teaching faculty holding different designations as Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers, etc. The petitioner-Institution found that, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were not discharging their duties for seven and half hours in a day as prescribed and the same is in violation of their service rules, deducted the salary proportionately on the ground of shortfall in working hours. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 being aggrieved by these orders of the petitioner, made representations to the petitioner and thereafter as the petitioner did not heed to their representations, they filed the appeals before the competent authority under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 namely before the respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 after giving an opportunity to both the parties on the revision petitions filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 (considered as appeals) and after hearing the objections of the petitioner, passed an order as per Annexure-B directing the Management to pay revised pay scale and as well as all other consequential benefits to respondent Nos.2 to 5 and also the amount which was deducted from the salaries of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The said order in appeal No. 352 of 2008 pertaining to respondent Nos.2 to 5 was challenged before the Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Department by way of review petitions. The Reviewing Authority has also issued an order as per Annexure-A in No.218 of 2011 dated 30.08.2011 dismissing the review petitions, the above said two orders are called in question before this Court on various grounds.

3. The first and primary ground urged before this Court which is sufficient to decide this writ petition is that, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Reviewing Authority have followed the principles of natural justice by following the prescribed procedure under the Karnataka Education Act and Rules and as well as they have not given any reasons considering the cases of the parties.

4. In this context, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.Mallikarjun S Hiremath has submitted that there need not be any detailed reasons to be given in the departmental proceedings, particularly when the Officers are not judicially trained. Therefore, he contends that when the principles of natural justice by means and issuing notice to the parties and giving an opportunity of hearing and then passing the orders, it would suffice to sustain such orders. Though no reasons have been given either by the Appellate Authority or by the Reviewing Authority, but the above said orders disclose that, the Officers have looked into the materials on record and then taken a decision. Therefore, those orders do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.

5. In my opinion, before discussing anything about the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-B and the Reviewing Authority as per Annexure-A, it is just and necessary to reiterate the exact orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority which are in vernacular, i.e. in Kannada language which are in detail depicted below:

--------------IN OTHER LANGUAGE---------------

ORDER ON REVIEW PETITIONS

--------------IN OTHER LANGUAGE---------------

6. Before adverting to whether the above said orders are