Karnataka High Court
E Chandrappa vs Deshiya Vidya Shala Samithi on 2 April, 2008
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
' 4-~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IIS 'II-IE 2"" DAY OF APRIL, zoos
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DES R ' 2 % [
BETWEEN :
Sri. ECHANDRAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
s/o ESHWARAPPA
R/OI{IREYE1\2flVIIGA1SI_iJ1{.__ V
HOLALKERETALUK ':--'
C}IfI'RADURGA_.DISTRI(2T. ~ PETTTIONER
(By Sri. M.P. ESHRIARARRA, Fifi: f
._e 1; V L -
311. K G :-m..*A'.<, A"&.'v'.) E;
" « VTIJYAEEALA SAMITHI
A . 'RF..PR_ESEI-aI'IED BY ITS SECRETARY
V':D~;A SHALA.
H SEHMOGA
4 :2 DV S'.cd1;LEGE OF
A ARTS, AND SCENCE
A R. D * REPRESENTED BY rrs PRINCIPAL
- _ _S_IA-IIMOGA
THE. D.TRECT..R VF CQI.J._E_1.A___m
EDUCATION
PALACE R &
BANGALORE
OM"
W311' PET1TIoNNo. 33983l1(!0§"(S'-R]_§__],fl$ 1 V'
4 THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. QF m(.Z'H..ER. EDUCAIION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
'D
M. S.uLflII'-IG
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 566 66.1. .l\.I:»)I\..u.u.,-:.__'
(By Sri. T. MOHAN AI_)'\/'., FOR
Sri. RB. SADASHIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R-1 1 . '
Sri. S.Z.A. KHURESHI, AGA, FDR R-3 AND Rf-4) E A. .3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED AR'VI'TCl'.lESv':22d':AND
227 OF '.{"n'i:'. c0Ns'rt'1*U'n0N wtttt A PE..-s.Y!;E; TO
QUASH THE IlVIPUGNED'~.. ORDER » .. .131'. 28-10-1995
"'" '"'"' PE'i'I+'?... 'THEC'U'GH' i.".i€'.'.:3vt'l'~.z_ib't'V'{{'3:'\'I'IflI'~I
COMMUNTCAWD TC) '1'
DT. so-1o-1995 ISSUED BY R-1, '.l'I~IE ORDER
DT.12-12-2003 PASSEDBY 'I'I-IEV'LEr'l.l1{.'~lI£I)fl)I3"I7. .:i:?ooE IN Misc.
(EAT) APPEAL No.4!_i99§ man: ._A1*~.FN.H AM) Erco:
mt FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE CQIJRT'VfIfHE_FQLLO\l{lIJ(};
_ :__ __'_ . .'__ .=. .1 n
In il"l1I! w11§.._1JG$':.'Ii 11-hli'; pugtuutuun new gun vu ;Gl' 3 nu-. II'. $5
_.r-.at_uro of to order dated 23.i6.1"fi5 r u vm Ill
and the order dated 12.12.2003 in MA ('E.A.T.)
% No.l4Jj§9o atone Educational Appellate Tribunal and District
VJuVdge ";(for short 'the Tribunal') confirming the order of
' 'rernoval. _
" - 2. Petitioner was working as a lecturer in the second respondent --
College of Arts and Science (for short 'the college'). On 28.12.1993 articles of charges '.1-.r.--.r.s iss=.t-r.l stmirtg that the petitioner with a \.\ \/ dishonest intention of committing examination malpractice removed blank answer books and blank additional sheets from the oflice of the of the second respondent College and handed over the same to "~ by name Adiscsha and reinserted the written answer sheets the invigilator diary for a consideration of R'sI2,0i}9f-fl-. submitted his reply on 03.03.1994 denym_ g isasassgsatteessi The 1')i.seIp!imn'v Ar . 'w heittgn = ' I #--nun 'nu I 1 I 1 e I V I 1 3 of the -pare-nee iiiitiated -zeeecas-tégs. ' is submitted his report on 25."7. i995 leiiisregles-'»»ieveiied against the petitioner as proved.' _'ii:e_ isstting_ a second show cause nofice:.passed;the'_ on 28.10.1995 removing the hy this order of penalty the petitionenfiled $eet_iun .94 of the Kamataka Education Act in Misc. a1')'peaiNo.' of the Tribunal. The Tribunal afier hea;j_s1g--»i:efl1 the byaeljaagnent dated 12.12.2003 dismissed Vthgsppsin by tire Hence, this writ petition.
4. Sn'. M.P. Eshwarappa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner V _"_4'4f:it*stly contends that under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational it Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') the ,7L~+ L/ prior approval from the Director of Collegiate Education is a must for levying a major penalty of removal from service. He contends that in the instant case without there being prior approval as required under V' ~ of the Act, the impugned order of penalty of removal of service is passed and the same liable to be set asi;tle.MTitis in _c_ase'-- =3' nu-I an nnnauinn tn nvanninn 'I' A at-nun n gfiflfififl fl 'rflifl V' 'Ill an UUVCIDIUII IU HAIIIILIIIU ulv uvuyv U: M w_ u k.'u vs V, in a given case ifete --e-~ -r---~=--'=--n-=-- " 'e..e-- 4--' '-we 4---+ without securing approval then it is ieztereiseiwiof power and the same is nevertheless a nttility. In considered this question in of examination malpractice vv_a8.cn_'2?,f1it).;ii.£?§?3_i. the Director of Collegiate Education directed insnegement to hold enquiry and to take action. Further the llssistant Regional Office by Ins letter dated 22.03.1994; directed .,r_espondent 'management to hold enquiry and to iv: ._.::-- -yr .
disciplinary action and to report the same immediately. ' "directed the respondent management to in- ET I l
-=:
E " 1 'action. The by considering this material on record conciudes that 'there is _s_ttficient compliance of requirement under Section 8 of the Act.
it facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the law laid it v by this Court in Malleshwaram Ladies Association's case I find no j_¢\/\ U Malleswarsrn Ladies Association Vs. H.N. 31996 FLIJ in / , illegality in the order of punishment passed by the respondent Management.
5. learned Senior counsel for the petitioner nextly the confession letter said to have been 27.10.1993 is vague and the same cannot be the basisiivtoliihold 7]'
-..._rg- Lvelied against the petitioner a Theproseentien reiiedoai ta'... '-.r'\..3'4.i.' fiend I'-In of examination actice tr-*ir*"'t mm. U11 gme cutntmat luv n-titiener 1 in his reply dated 03.03.'E9_94 te"tiie~njtic.ies.':te__r'i" states that the confession _:ehat§gtes is ttotiiim respect of any allegations has not denied the confesion letter in the enquiry proceedings the petitioner contends' thatltheicettfessitiittietter dated 27.10.1993 is obtained by coercion dttress, the cross-examination of the Principal isuggests confession letter dated 27.10.1993 is " 1 ' ~ stages in the fahfleet.-ed' *..- ',f Lie ".n.i_1._f.e same is not executed and written by him. This D". 'a. V _ g with regard =.2'.7--."10.,1993 manifestly makes it ciear that in order to overcome the adrniesion of guilt he is changing his defence from time to time. Further 0 iv' ., the petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his plea that the confession letter dated 27.10.1993 was an outcome of coercion and duress. /\ 5/V" 0 Petitioner has not stepped into the witness box and in specific words has not denied the confession letter. On the other hand the witness produced this letter of confession and specifically stated 2. in the handwriting of the petitioner and in two places the . "
signed on it. Under the circumstances, and on Zthehasis eto'deneei.i'c. the conctusion of the Enquiry Olficcr is supported _eiiidence_vAo11i';e.;Vg,,V;§1:i:'i--l and I find nojI..1sti..fis.1-!e F_I_1nd to the same. ' V
6. Lastly it is contended e1;_idenee*.ou~record is fitll of 2neonsie.ene-ies ..nd d- n__t e_tah!i.sh_ the .c1ta1'ge";levelied against the peti'i*n"r "51"" Court etnder Article zzecr t..e ..,'oi-.et. ...ion of In...e s-.e_l! not substitute its ccsgtictt acne on brought to my not;i:t:e"*;'5I:jl_tatAViiV$':».tltc-- rttetetiai evidence that is ignored by the Enquiry Officer. VVFtn.'tl1er it iislriotishown to me as to how the conclusion of the Enquiry is_:not.supporte'ttby evidence on record. Therefore I decline the same.
H * ~in;dispute that the order. of penalty specifies that the petitioner wasrernoved from service which is not a disqualification for ' ernplotrinent. Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal the petitioner .A_re.qnest'ed'i the respondent Government in his representation dated T ~1 'L1995 to accommodate him in any other aided institution and that the same is nm cor-.ei%red ..y .!-.e .e%d.--.tc If Lhmt 3 so, the respondent
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition in so far as it relates to the order of penalty and the judgment of the Tribune] is", concerned, is hereby rejected. The impugned order of penalty judgment of the Tribunal are confirmed. The respondent A hereby directed to consider the representation"'of- the accordance with law as expeditiously as possibIei'witho1it VT .7...-.-.
E
9.':8
E '3 0 9° $ sir' an