http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2554 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

State of Karnataka & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

W I TH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2555-2557 OF2003

S.B. SINHA, J :

One Venkappa Gowda, Respondent No.3 herein, was at all material

times a lecturer in Kuvempu Mahavidyalaya, the Appellant No.2 herein.

The said institution is under the management of the Appellant No.1.

The private institutions in the State of Karnataka are governed by the

Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act,

1975, (for short, ’ the Act’).

The Respondent No.3 herein was subjected to a disciplinary

proceeding on an allegation that he had assaulted the Principal of Appellant

No.2 with a ’chappal’. He was found guilty of the said charge and dismissed

from service. An appeal was preferred by him before the Educational

Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal’) in terms of Section 8 of the

said Act. The said Tribunal is constituted in terms of Section 10 thereof.

The proceeding before the said Tribunal by a legal fiction is treated to be a

judicial proceeding. It is not in dispute that the Appellant No.2 received

grant-in-aid from the State of Karnataka in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Code

framed by the Karnataka Collegiate Education Department. Before the

Tribunal, the State of Karnataka as also the Director of Collegiate Education

were impleaded as parties. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether

the departmental proceedings held against the Respondent No.3 was in

consonance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules. While

deciding the preliminary issue, it was held that the departmental proceeding

was invalid in law. The Appellants, therefore, adduced evidences before the

Tribunal to prove the charges against Respondent No.3. The Tribunal

having regard to the pleading of the parties formulated the following

questions for its determination :

"1. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 have

proved by acceptable evidence that allegation that the

appellant had absented from duty unauthorisedly and as

to whether his conduct was unbecoming of lecturer ?

2. Whether the evidence establishes that the

appellant had misbehaved on 18.1.87 and as to whether

he had indulged in physical assault upon the Principal?

3. If so, whether the punishment of dismissal

imposed upon the appellant is justified in this case and

if not what punishment he deserves?"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal

held that the first charge had not been satisfactorily proved by cogent and

acceptable evidence. As regard the second charge, it was found :

"R.W. 1 has himself stated that he did not permit

appellant to sign the attendance register in the morning of

18.9.87. It led to verbal altercation and then turned to

heated argument. According to R.W. 1 appellant abused

him in the vulgar language as :

(Boli magane, Mudi goobe, Neenyaru nnann

Jekijethus)

RW. 1 pushed him. This particular part of his

evidence is sought to be corroborated to evidence of C.S

Dhanpal. Dhanpal has stated he was present in the

chamber of Principal when appellant arrived. He also

says that the Principal refused to permit appellant to sign

the attendance register. Dhanpal further stated that R.W.

1 told appellant he will not permit him to sign even

morning registers if he does not sign afternoon registers.

After hearing such talk Vankappagowda replied "It is not

a proper conduct of Principal" and rushed towards him.

Then Principal took away the register from

Venkappagowda At that juncture Venkappagowda

caught hold of his collar. Simultaneously Principal R.W.

1 pushed Venkappagowda down whic