Bangalore District Court
Dr.M.N.Chandrashekar S/O vs B.M.S. Education Trust on 28 May, 2018
BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, AND THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH.25).
Dated: This the 28th day of May 2018
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012, M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012,
M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012
M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012
Appellant Dr.M.N.Chandrashekar S/o
M.P.Narayana, Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Assistant Professor of
Architecture, R/a S204, Arambha
Apartments 23, Alfred Street,
Richmond Town, Bangalore-5600025.
(By Sri.PNR, Advocate.)
Vs
Respondents: 1. B.M.S. Education Trust, Bull
Temple Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560004, Represented
by its Chairman.
2. The Chairman, Board of
Governors, B.M.S. School of
Architecture Avalahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064.
3. The Director-Incharge, B.M.S.
School of Architecture
Avalahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalre-560064.
4. Smt.Sapna Papu W/o
Sudarshan, Director Incharge,
B.M.S. School of Architecture
2 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
Avalahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560064.
(R1 to R4 - by Sri.AA, Advocate)
Date of Institution 13.9.2012
Nature of suit Appeal u/s 94 of K.E. Act,
1983
Date of commencement of 27.7.2013
evidence
Date on which the judgment 28.5.2018
was pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
5 8 15
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012
Appellant K.Vishwanatha S/o P.M.Krishnappa,
Aged about 29 years, Adarsha Nilaya,
7th Cross, Adharshnagar, Araleri
Road, Mallur Town, Malur Taluk-
563130, Kolar District.
(By Sri.PNR, Advocate.)
Vs
Respondents: 1. B.M.S. Education Trust, Bull
Temple Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560004, Represented
by its Chairman.
2. The Chairman, Board of
Governors, B.M.S. School of
Architecture Avalahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064.
3 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
3. The Director-Incharge, B.M.S.
School of Architecture Avalahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalre-560064.
4. Smt.Sapna Papu W/o
Sudarshan, Director Incharge,
B.M.S. School of Architecture
Avalahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560064.
(R1 to R4 - by Sri.AA, Advocate)
Date of Institution 13.9.2012
Nature of suit Appeal u/s 94 of K.E. Act,
1983
Date of commencement of 27.7.2013
evidence
Date on which the judgment 28.5.2018
was pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
5 8 15
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012
Appellant Sreenivas.B S/o Basavaiah, Aged
about 29 years, #323, Kilaripete,
Hoskote, Bangalore-562 114.
(By Sri.PNR, Advocate.)
Vs
Respondents: 1. B.M.S. Education Trust, Bull
Temple Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560004, Represented
by its Chairman.
4 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
2. The Chairman, Board of
Governors, B.M.S. School of
Architecture Avalahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064.
3. The Director-Incharge, B.M.S.
School of Architecture Avalahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalre-560064.
4. Smt.Sapna Papu W/o
Sudarshan, Director Incharge,
B.M.S. School of Architecture
Avalahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560064.
(R1 to R4 - by Sri.AA, Advocate)
Date of Institution 13.9.2012
Nature of suit Appeal u/s 94 of K.E. Act,
1983
Date of commencement of 27.7.2013
evidence
Date on which the judgment 28.5.2018
was pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
5 8 15
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
These appeals are filed u/s 94 of The Karnataka
Education Act, 1983.
5 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
2. The summary of the appeal memos is as under:
the appellants in M.A.(EAT) No:7/2012 and
M.A.(EAT) No:9/2012 were appointed as lecturers by
respondent no.1 in it's BMS School of Architecture,
(BMSSA), whereas the appellant in M.A.(EAT)
No:8/2012 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the
very school. These appellants were so appointed under
different office memoranda. It is the contention of the
appellants that infact they joined the BMSSA at the
instance of one Dr.Sridhar Rajan, who was then
Director/Principal of the college, but abruptly he quit
his job and thereafter the respondent no.4 was placed
incharge of the said Director/Principal's post though
she was not competent to hold it. Once she took
charge as Incharge Director the troubles started and
the institution which was functioning smoothly started
going in other way. They further allege that in order to
victimize them the respondent no.4 gave wrong picture
about them to the management and as a result the
impugned orders were passed on 3.9.2012 and they
were came to be terminated from their service. Thus
they have questioned the said orders of termination on
the following grounds:
that the impugned orders are stigmatic in nature
and without their being any appraisal of their
performances and without having any review or
counseling sessions much less any advice by the
6 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
authorities the drastic step of removing them was
taken by the respondents causing immense injustice
to them; that a bare glance of the official memoranda
disclose that the said orders are result of
presumptions and assumptions of the management;
that there is a gross violation of the principles of
natural justice and they were not heard before passing
the said impugned orders; that though the impugned
orders allege that their performance was not up to the
mark, the examination results of the students would
speak on their own; that instead of taking action
against the respondent no.4 against whom a complaint
was filed by all the teaching faculty the impugned
orders have been passed against them; that the
appointing authority being the Board of Trustees of
BMS Education Trust the orders passed by the
Chairman is without jurisdiction and are liable to be
quashed; that all these appeals are filed within time
and no other case or appeal is filed before any other
authority. Wherefore the appellants seek to set aside
the orders of termination dt.3.9.2012 and to reinstate
them with all consequential and financial benefits.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed their
separate objection statements in all these appeals, but
more or less they are drafted identically except few
veriations, as such I have extracted the summary of
the said objection statements as under;
7 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
the appeals are liable to be dismissed in limine as
appellants have failed to implead BMS School of
Architecture (BMSSA) as a party to the appeal. That
these appellants were appointed on temporary basis
and before they completed the period of probation they
were came to be discharged from service, therefore
there is no question of holding any enquiry or issuing
of show-cause-notices to them. The orders of
appointment issued to them being governed by the
clauses contained in them, in accordance with the
clauses of the said official memoranda/appointment
orders the services of these appellants were came to be
terminated. It is not the case of the appellants that
their services were confirmed by the BMSSA and they
were permanent employees of it. In respect of the
appellant in M.A.(EAT) No:8/2012 the respondents
submit that he was oftenly flouting the rules and
regulations framed by the BMSSA and he was in the
habit of applying leave oftenly and without any valid
reason. That he was in the habit of absenting to the
duty without applying for leave and without obtaining
prior permission or informing the other faculty
members. On one occasion i.e., on 5.6.2012 he being
internal examiner did not attend to the examination
duty in time and he made the external examiner to
wait for him from 8.45 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. Thus he had
transgressed all his limits and exhibited un-
professionalism. He used to apply for leave without
8 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
having leaves to his credit. In so far as the appellants
in M.A.(EAT) No.7/12 and M.A.(EAT) No:9/2012 the
respondents submit that the said appellants and other
faculty members were sent to tour along with the
students and the said tour was sponsored by BMSSA,
during that study tour instead of monitoring the
students strictly, which was the responsibility of the
said appellants and other faculty members, they
exhibited their gross irresponsibility and total
negligence leading to the filing of complaint by the tour
guide. That because of the carelessness and negligence
of the said appellants the purpose of tour could not be
achieved and students were unable to complete their
task of "measure drawing". There was total lack of co-
ordination by the said appellants in arranging the tour
and achieving the object behind it. When the said acts
of the appellants were brought to the notice of the
management by the respondent no.4 through written
communications, these appellants started nursing
grudge against her and continued to flout the rules
and discipline of the BMSSA, therefore in order to
maintain the dignity of the institution a meeting was
held and the committee took decision to terminate
these appellants. The said decision also taken based
on the feedback of the students. Therefore the
impugned orders of terminations are perfectly valid
and are legal. Especially when the appellants were
working as temporary employees, invoking of Sec.94 of
9 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
the K.E. Act is wholly erroneous. Thus on these
grounds and other grounds the respondents 1 to 3
pray to dismiss the appeals with costs.
4. The respondent no.4 nevertheless entered
appearance, she has not taken interest to contest by
filing her objection statement.
5. Based on the said pleadings my predecessor in
office has framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012
1. Whether appellant proves that, enquiry
proceedings initiated/conducted by the
respondent against him were not as per
Rules approved under the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983?
2. Whether the dismissal order
dated:3.9.2012 against the appellant by the
respondent is in accordance with law?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled for
reinstatement with all benefits of regular
service?
4. To what order parties are entitled?
10 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012
1. Whether the termination of the appellant
is not a termination simplicitor but
stigmatic and thereby requires enquiry
under Karnataka Education Act 1983?
2. Whether the termination order
dtd.3.9.2012 against the appellant by the
respondent is not in accordance with law?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled for
reinstatement with all benefits of regular
service?
4. To what order parties are entitled?
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012
1. Whether the termination of the appellant
is not a termination simplicitor but
stigmatic and thereby requires enquiry
under Karnataka Education Act 1983?
2. Whether the termination order
dtd.3.9.2012 against the appellant by the
respondent is not in accordance with law?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled for
reinstatement with all benefits of regular
service?
11 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
4. To what order parties are entitled?
6. In support of their appeals the appellant in
M.A.(EAT) No:8/2012 examined himself as PW1,
appellant in M.A.(EAT) No:7/2012 examined himself
as PW2 and appellant in M.A.(EAT) No:9/2012
examined himself as PW3. In all 73 documents are
marked on their behalf. On the other hand the
respondents 1 to 3 examined their Administrative
Officer as RW1 and through him got marked Ex.R1 to
R11. I have heard the arguments of Sri.PNR, advocate
for the appellants and Sri.AA, advocate for the
respondents. Perused.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012
Issue No.1 - Struck down
Issue No.2 - In the negative
Issue No.3 - Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 - As per final order, for the following:
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative
Issue No.2 - In the affirmative
Issue No.3 - In the affirmative
Issue No.4 - As per final order, for the following:
12 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
ISSUES IN M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative
Issue No.2 - In the affirmative
Issue No.3 - Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 - As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
Issue No.1 in M.A.(EAT) No:8/2012:
8. On going through this issue I have no
hesitation to say that, may be due to slip of sight it
has been framed. Surprisingly neither the appellants
nor the respondents took any objection in framing that
issue though it was framed long back on 7.9.2013. It
is undisputed that before terminating these appellants
no enquiry as such was held by the respondents 1 to
3, in a given situation it would be totally incorrect to
frame an issue as if such enquiry was held by the
respondents. When it is nobody's case that the
impugned orders were preceded by an enquiry, much
less any summary enquiry, this issue cannot survive
and it requires to be struck down. Therefore exercising
the power vested in this tribunal u/o 14 Rule-5 of CPC
I strike down it.
Issue No.2 and 3 of M.A.(EAT) No:8/2012 and issue
nos.1 to 3 of M.A.(EAT) No:9/2012 and M.A.(EAT)
No:7/2012
9. Since these issues can be conveniently taken
up at a time I have taken them simultaneously.
13 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
10. During his arguments Sri.PNR, advocate
strongly canvassed that no-doubt the appellants were
working in BMSSA on temporary basis and were on
probation, but the impugned orders are not
innocuous, instead they are stigmatic in nature. So it
was his submission that in the garb of discharging
from their services castigating remarks have been
made against them, wherefore the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside and the appellants are
entitled to be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits. In support of his arguments he
referred to the Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported at (1974) 2 SCC 831 in the
case of Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab and another
relied by the very respondents 1 to 3 and (2000)3 SCC
239 in the case of V.P.Ahuja Vs State of Punjab and
others and (2013)3 SCC 607 in the case of State Bank
of India and others Vs Palak Modi and another. On the
other hand Sri.AA, advocate canvassed that when
admittedly these appellants were temporary
employees, they cannot seek protection under the
provisions of the K.E. Act and as held in the decision
reported at (2002)1 SCC 520 in the case of Pavanendra
Narayan Verma Vs Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Sciences and another and (2010)2 SCC 623 in the
case of Chaitanya Prakash and another Vs
H.Omkarappa and Samsher Singh's case it is perfectly
within the powers of respondents 1 to 3 to pass the
14 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
impugned orders, wherefore he contended that the
appellants are misdirected and prayed to dismiss the
appeals with costs. I have anxiously gone through the
entire case file and the ratio laid down in the decisions
relied by them.
11. It is true that the appellants were discharging
their duties in BMSSA on temporary basis. It is also
not in dispute that no enquiry as such was initiated
against them before they were terminated from service.
With these undisputed facts, let us find out whether
there is any justification in the orders impugned?
12. As per the letter produced at Ex.R2 pertaining
to the PW2 and official memorandum dt.3.8.2011
pertaining to him, he was appointed by BMSSA as a
lecturer with two years of probation. The Ex.R4 and
R5 are the letter and official memorandum of PW3 and
they too disclose that on 14.7.2011 he was appointed
as a lecturer on a condition of two years probation.
The Ex.P20 is the official memorandum of PW1 and it
is dt.6.8.2011. In all these official memoranda the
appellants were appointed by the BMSSA and they
were so employed with a condition of two years of
probationary period. It is not in dispute that as on the
date of issuing of impugned orders of termination
produced at Ex.P31, Ex.P1 and Ex.P52, none of these
appellants had completed the period of probation, now
the point is whether on that ground can it be said that
15 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
as they were temporary employees the respondents
could have terminated them without holding enquiry
in the given facts and circumstances of the cases. In
order to decide this aspect one has to read the said
Ex.P31 (copy of which is also produced at Ex.R1),
Ex.P1 and P52. In all these memoranda it is alleged
that even after several reviews, counseling sessions
and advice by the authorities there has been no
improvement in teaching abilities of the said officials
(appellants). Therefore the management felt that they
are unable to hold the posts as per the requirement of
the institution as such they were came to be
terminated. Again at the cost of repetition I say that
while making such remarks against them by the
respondents in the said official memoranda
dt.3.9.2012 no enquiry as such was held against the
appellants. The bare reading of the said memoranda
would show that they are not orders of termination
simpliciter, rather they casted stigma of their under
performance. Coming across similar such instance in
the Samsher Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
speaking through the Constitution Bench at Para-64
observed that, before a probationer is confirmed the
authority concerned is under an obligation to consider
whether the work of the probationer is satisfactory or
whether he is suitable for the post. In the absence of
any rules governing a probationer in this respect the
authority may come to the conclusion that on account
16 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or
other object not involving moral turpitude the
probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must
be discharged. No punishment is involved in such
case. The authority may in some cases be of the view
that the conduct of the probationer may result in
dismissal or removal on an enquiry. But in those cases
the authority may not hold an enquiry and may simply
discharge the probationer with a view to giving him a
chance to make good in other walks of life without a
stigma at the time of termination during probation. If,
on the other hand, the probationer is faced with an
enquiry on charges of misconduct or inefficiency or
corruption, and if his services are terminated without
following the provisions of Article-311(2) he can claim
protection.
13. In view of the said observation if one reads the
said Ex.P31/R1, P1 and P52 unhesitatingly it can be
said that the alleged attribution of lack of
improvement in teaching abilities by these appellants
inspite of several reviews and counseling sessions and
advise by the authorities would show that the said
orders of termination are not orders of termination
simpliciter, rather they are laced with stigma of
inability or incapability of these appellants to teach
well. However in order to prove their alleged inability
17 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
and in-capability no enquiry as such was held by the
respondents.
14. In State Bank of India's case referring to the
Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case and Samsher
Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
ratio laid down in Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case
cannot be received as precedent and the said
judgement is per-incuriam as it did not take notice of
the Constitutional Bench decision of Samsher Singh.
Wherefore one cannot refer to the observation made in
Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case or Chaitanya
Prakash's case, which followed the ratio laid down in
the said Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case. Even
other wise as extracted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in para-6 of the judgement in Chaitanya Prakash's
case the order of termination involved in that case
contained no stigma. Wherefore I hold that the
decisions relied by Sri.AA, advocate, especially
Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case and Chaitanya
Prakash's case will not come to his aid, instead the
Samsher Singh's case relied by him helps the
appellants rather than the respondents. In the State
Bank of India's case the Hon'ble court further held
that whether an order of termination is an order of
termination simpliciter or punitive in nature, would
decide the legality of such an order. It was also held
that no-doubt the probationer has no right to hold
18 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
post and his services can be terminated at any time on
the grounds of unsuitability, but if allegations of
misconduct or inefficiency are made and if the said
factors constitute the foundation of action taken by
the competent authority for termination, then such
order of termination without holding enquiry is against
the principles of natural justice. It is also observed
that though where the order of termination prima-facie
is non-stigmatic, court can lift the veil and examine
whether in the garb of termination simpliciter,
employer had infact punished the employee for alleged
mis-conduct/inefficiency.
15. In V.P.Ahuja's case, the Hon'ble court once
again referring to it's previous judgements held that if
the order of termination attributes the
underperformance of an employee either
administratively or technically, then such an order of
termination would definitely unsustainable in the eye
of law. Therefore even if Clause-2 of the order of
appointment issued to these appellants provided that
they were expected to complete the period of probation
of two years before their services were confirmed, in
view of remarks made in the impugned orders, I have
no hesitation to hold that they failed to meet the
requirements as laid down in the Samsher Singh's
case. As held in that case such an observation by the
employer while discharging the probationer would
19 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
certainly affect his future employments and his future
prospects, so it cannot be upheld in the eye of law.
16. Added to the above the very pleading and
evidence of respondents would show that they were
very much upset with the alleged conduct of the
appellants in flouting the rules and regulations of the
BMSSA and the alleged unauthorised absence of PW1
and carelessness and negligence of PWs.2 and 3
during the study tour. According to them the said acts
of the appellants amounted to misconduct, but to
prove those misconducts no effort as such was made
by holding an enquiry.
17. It is also pleaded and contended by the
respondents that in the feedback of the students these
appellants were found inefficient in their teaching
abilities and it was reported to them by the respondent
no.4 through written communications. Atleast to
substantiate the said aspect no enquiry was held and
authenticity of the said allegation was not brought to
the fore. The said allegations and evidence adduced on
them by reference to the students evaluation forms
produced at Ex.P9 to P24 and letter of the tour
operator at Ex.R11, once again prove beyond shadow
of doubt that all the while the respondents were
allegedly compelled to terminate the appellants on
their alleged inefficiency and mis-conduct, which have
gone unproved. So again and again I made to say that
20 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
the action of the respondents in removing these
appellants was not an order of removal simpliciter,
rather they were prompted by an intention to punish
them for their unproved mis-conduct and inefficiency.
18. If once the above conclusion is arrived then
what remains is, whether the appellants are entitled
for all the reliefs as prayed by them? Here I would like
to explain little more. In addition to seeking their
reinstatement the appellants are also seeking for
continuity of service as well as arrears of salary from
the date of their illegal termination, thus here three
things are involved viz; reinstatement, continuity of
service and arrears of salary. In this regard the cross-
examination of PWs.1 and 2 would show that the PW1
is working as Dean and Professor from January 2013
in SJB School of Architecture and Planning and it is
better post than the post he held in the BMSSA. When
he was specifically confronted whether he would like to
rejoin the BMSSA, he replied that he cannot disclose
now itself and he would keep his option open.
Similarly on page no.12 of his cross-exam PW2
admitted that previously he was working in the Oxford
College of Engineering and recently he too has joined
SJB School of Architecture and Planning as Assistant
Professor. He too replied that his present job with the
said institution is fetching more salary than what he
was receiving in BMSSA. However no such things were
21 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
elicited from the mouth of PW3. The purpose of
referring to the said portions of their cross-
examination is, the PWs.1 and 2 are gainfully
employed and infact they are earning more
handsomely than what they were earning in BMSSA,
however it is not the yardstick to refuse the order of
reinstatement and continuity of services to them, at
the most they cannot stake claim on the arrears of
salary. But in respect of PW3 i.e., appellant in
M.A.(EAT) No:9/2012, he is not only entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service, even he is
also entitled for arrears of salary. Here I have to decide
to how much extent he can seek the arrears of salary.
In this regard I would like to take note of the repeated
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in awarding the
arrears of salary. The time and again Hon'ble court
held that, when an employee is ordered to be
reinstated with continuity of service, it does not mean
that he has to be so reinstated with complete back
wages. It was held that when such an employee does
not render any service to his employer during that
period, in order to balance both ends, the order of
reinstatement with continuity of service and portion of
the arrears of salary would meet the ends of justice. In
the case in hand considering the overall facts and
circumstances I hold that reinstatement of PW3 with
continuity of service and 30% of arrears of salary
would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly summing
22 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12
up my discussion, in the light of the foregoing findings
and conclusion I answer issue no.2 of M.A. (EAT)
No:8/2012 in the negative and issue no.3 of it partly
in the affirmative, whereas issue no.1 to 3 of M.A.
(EAT) No:9/2012 in the affirmative and lastly issue
no.1 and 2 of M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012 in the affirmative
and issue no.3 of it partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.4 of M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012, M.A. (EAT)
No:9/2012 and M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012:
19. In the result I proceed to make the following
ORDER
M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012, M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012 are partly allowed M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012 is allowed.
The impugned orders of termination are set aside. Consequently all the appellants are ordered to be reinstated from the date of termination with continuity of service.
However in respect of the appellant in M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012 in addition to the above relief he is also entitled for arrears of salary to the extent of 30% from the date of termination till the date of this order.
23 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12This order shall be kept in M.A. (EAT) No:8/2012 and copies of the same shall be kept in M.A. (EAT) No:9/2012 and M.A. (EAT) No:7/2012.
Draw awards accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of May 2018) (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the appellant side:
PW1 Dr.M.N.Chandrashekar PW2 Sreenivas.B PW3 K.Vishwanatha List of documents exhibited for the appellant side:
Ex.P1 Dismissal order dt.3.9.2012 Ex.P2 Appointment letter dt.6.8.2011 Ex.P3 Brochure of the college Ex.P4 to P6 Certificates Ex.P7 Joined SJB school of Architecture of Planning Ex.P8 Appointment order Ex.P9 to P24 Student Evaluation Forms Ex.P25 Report of the Expert dt.5.6.2013 Ex.P26 Letter dt.23.8.2012 Ex.P27 & P28 Courier receipts Ex.P29 Letter dt.8.8.2012 Ex.P30 University Evaluation Result Analysis Ex.P31 Termination letter dt.43.9.2012 Ex.P32 Letter dt.23.8.2012 Ex.P33 Courier receipt 24 M.A.(EAT) No:8/12, 9/12 & 7/12 Ex.P34 Analysis Report Ex.P35 to P50 Faculty Appraisal Forms Ex.P51 Expert opinion Ex.P52 Official Memorandum Ex.P53 Common representation Ex.P54 Result Analysis Sheet Ex.P55 Representation Ex.P56 Courier receipt Ex.P57 Forensic Report Ex.P58 to P73 Appraisal Forms List of witness examined for the respondents side:
RW1 K.V.Ramachandra List of documents exhibited for the respondents side:
Ex.R1 Relieving order (PW2) Ex.R2 Offer Letter dt.3.8.2011 (PW2) Ex.R3 Memorandum (PW2 Ex.R4 Offer letter dt.14.7.2011 (PW3)
Ex.R4(a) Signature (PW3) Ex.R5 Official Memorandum (PW3) Ex.R5(a) Signature (PW3) Ex.R6 Official memorandum dt.3.9.2012 (PW3 Ex.R7 Letter of authorization Ex.R8 Proceedings of the meeting Ex.R9 Letter to the Chairman Ex.R10 List of faculty and students Ex.R11 Complaint by B.Praveen (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.