IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.12338 OF 2022 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY M.S. RAMAIAH NAGAR, MSRIT POST, BENGALURU-560054 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

Digitally 2. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION, signed by SUNITHA K S A REGISTERED TRUST Location:

VIDYA SOUDHA, HIGH COURT OF M.S. RAMAIAH NAGAR KARNATAKA MSRIT POST, BAGNALORE-560054 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ASHOK G V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. S.K.REKHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O SRI VINOD KALLUR R/AT NO.13, AMS LAYOUT EXTENSION V STAGE, VIDYARANYAPRUA BENGALURU-560097.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SRINANDAN.K., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-25 IN M.A.(EAT) NO.14/2014; QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 16.03.2022 IN M.A. (EAT) NO.14/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.25) AT ANNX-A AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, UPHOLD THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF THE RESPONDENT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2022 passed in M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 by the learned III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.25).

2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The respondent has completed the Bachelor of Engineering in Chemical Engineering from prestigious Karnataka Regional Engineering College. She was pursuing Ph.D on the subject “Analysis of Factors Influencing Entrepreneurship in Companies” in the Department of Management Studies., Anna University and she was appointed on 29.08.2002 as a Manager (Training). It is contended that she has made a scapegoat and false accusations were made against her and charge sheet was issued on 27.03.2012. The respondent replied that to the show-cause notice and denied the charges leveled against her. Subsequently, suspension order was revoked and she was permitted to work. It is contended that, suddenly she was asked to report simultaneously to the head of the departments of the department of Computer Science and the department of Electronics. The respondent when asked the Management to clarify to which department she would be attached, she was replied to report to the head of the department of Electronics. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Management, the petitioner reported to the head of the department of Electronics. It is contended that the petitioner was again shifted to Biotechnology Department. She is not a graduate in Biotechnology and she was asked to teach on that subject. Without any reasons, the principal issued Office Order dated 10.06.2013 making insubstantial allegations and terminated the petitioner from service with the effect from 31.07.2013. It is contended that, before passing an order of termination, no enquiry was held. Hence on these grounds, the respondent aggrieved by the order of termination, preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal.

3. The petitioners filed the objections denying the averments made in the appeal memo filed before the Educational Appellate Tribunal and also contended that the appeal filed by the respondent herein was barred by limitation. It is contended that the order of termination is neither arbitrary, perverse nor malafide. It is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is contended that the petitioners have received a complaint from the students against the respondent. Based on the complaint submitted by the students, the petitioners have terminated the respondent from the service and the order of termination is valid. Hence on