The B M S Educational Trust vs Sri M R Bhagwan Singh on 4 March, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The B M S Educational Trust vs Sri M R Bhagwan Singh on 4 March, 2010

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

IN THE iH}iGiH COURT OF KAR}.\EATA.K.A AT BANC3.A?_l4§O.R.E

DATED THIS THE 04"! DAY OF MARC}--%=1Z"20A'ikQ'F;-A:   _

BEFORE  

THE HON'BLE MR. JTTUSTKZTE H.N'%.%NiaGAM'a3;Hfm*4 ji:*};S%V"%.k

W.P.No.2oo85¢éQ09(s--ms)j%T 
BETWEEN: ! V ! ' V

1. THE B.M.s.EDI;ICA'r1QNALf:?Rt£Sfi?_ 
BLJL1.I'EM1>L.1«::.'m,z§.1f), '_ I  - 
BANGALoR334:~,60 .1 '

R13:3>.Bj\: :*I's PPl§1NCi"i3iA1.  - . , 

2. 'm}3i'£:1-MIRMAN :OZ€' 'i"E__IT:; 
BOARD cm MA NA'<;_1'::M:1&::MT'1'°;'_.»%w
B.M..AS,C§IC)E..i,,EGEV 0:9'. 1-'£NG.INE%'.ERiN(}
_3U:.;;. '1'EMP1.1%,' .R(3=Ai},

' '  - ,3A:\aJGA.1:,oR12756() ()1 *

I  ii-TPRINVCE-E?}1L

' V  BANGAJ.;ORE--560 019.

B;M';S.(IOLLE£}E 01? EN(}1N£ERfNG
BULL '1"1__ZI\?1?I;E R_OAD,

_.PE'E'[TIONERS

_V  {By S}:i.1<.K.As'mR£, sR.c:QUNs':a:1:., FOR
 'V H __.MfS.VISEIWANA'1'H ASSTS.)



AN I):

M . R . "BI-£'AGV\/AN SING I--I

AGEI): A..BOUT 53 YEARS

A.SS'1".P.ROFESS()R [REMOVISD FROM SERVICIEI]
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SECTION

B.M.S. COLL1?.GE OF ENGINEERING
BUIII. T}?IM.PI_,E ROAD,
BANGA.1..ORI;?.--56()O19.    I  ' ,_  
  '  .R133':1"OND!:LNfIi" '  I T

(By SR1 ANANDARAMU 3: ASSTS.). 4_

T}--HS WR.i"'[" PE1"l"I"I"IO:\l £«'£"1;£;1j>  Q25: 13:" 2:27 OF 'mg
<:QNs'1'1'1""L?I'ION 01+' ,IN;)£A .vAI'3-5'R;AYIN'a;._ TO 'Qi;:AsH THE
1M_PUG_NE1') }1'}DGE\/IENTY  '()R£'3ER 'I ~.E3_A'1'ED 25.4.2009

UNDER A:\INEXURE~1iI 1355*-s,E'.1)'."_1";f\..TfV MA.[}:;§;f;j}.'.-;w'().23,r2004, ON

TH.Ej lT;ELIEN' £).uFiiifl'I«II4§f:~: E:£>"UQ';A.'rIO'NA1§: APPELLATE '1"'_RIBUN'A1,,
BANG".,.31J<}12I:%:Vcjlim'B.sw(;'A.1:.C)RL: AN'l'i) E£'Ij'(3.

"i'}1iuS'NpetiI.éG{1_C()rning1011 for prelilmzlar}-* $119;-1:ri.ng this ciaya
the <t.:;u7{: I}1aCI€~.,1iITe' "E01 lowing;
C) R [3 ER
I  ' This"wVi*it}peti1:i011 is filed for a writ of crertiorari to

qL1'ga_shv_'v'tI}"Iéw'Iorcier dat:c=rd 25.4.2009 in M.A.[I3A'F]

NQL.23z/'£3004 passed by the Ed'uc:ati0'nal Appellate

I T. I 'Fri-bs;1na1l, Bangamre City, B:»;mga1o1'e (for short

 " -~--"I"I'ib111'1aI']

a*-«-I



'-AJ

2. Petitioners are an educational i11st.itut.io_n;i.

Petitioners appointed the respondent as Lect:J'rerfo__n5 

1-4.5.1981 and later was promoted as  in

the year 1991. Respondent was working  9 at

Department of Manageinerre E3.'gudie's. in Coipipeggie
from 1995 to 1998. Res onden_';._uWias*V.i;.he Vice )resiident
of BMS Engineering C'o1lege'- Association. As
per the decision" of Aissocriation the
respondent' -pijieseriii*d"'-.9s'e\}eral'~~cE'ernands before the
petitiolier 'out in V9\f'£;1:91"i«'1¢. Association resolved

to go for tok~e1i' pr'otes_tj'~~-"ifxcreordingly, the respondent

V"-and-.e.. '"othe1'-s ma'.Cie"" token protest against the

the petitioners. Consequent to this

protest, ,the£'..--petit.ionei"s issued charge sheet alleging

 the' respondent with others prevented the

 _9s.ti;z-clents from attending the classes, forcibly closed the

 ..n'-iaiii gate, instigated the other students to come out

from the classrooms and threatened the stafi' and

<3*"\""*



students not to conduct. the Classes. It is furtfher.

alleged that respondent and others pastsed_;"'p(3s.te..r_is

containing vulgar and abusive language;*ag--e:.l'i1s{'~..:th:% '4

petit,i0r1ers--rna.nagement and its officebe-arers-etc. """l.l;"l1__e:;VaA

res ondent submitted his 1'é,'ly den? ir1'{ t.l:ie'sCthar es

levelled against him. .l3'etiti(A)y.I.1l:fll:l:IA*€:a._being'~;1:QM/gatisfied
with the exp1anation""~.:si".,  initiated
disciplinary er1qt1i_ry {he enquiry
officer  the charges
level1ed.ivagai.ri;st'the  proved. Finally the
Disciplim_ar3f_  an order of penalty on

5.8.2004 l"'('"3..l{Tl0\{'lIl.gAA~,l{l'l'&?":V respondent from service.

 by the"0r--d--er of penalty. respondent. filed an

   Triburial in MA[EA'l'] 23/2004 under

Se(;tien   Kfarnatalia Educaticiii Act. 1983. On

 basis of pleadings. the Tribunal framed the

 T "fQ'll.Q\_?\llH§§ points:

  Whether the impugned order passed by R1 is

illegal and not sustainable in law'?

5/} \f'~"§"
\/



ii) Whether the Appellant is ent.it,l_e<.l_:"-ﬂfoi'
reinstatement and baekwages?

iii} What Order'?   '

3. Before the T'1'il3'1'.l:.n"a-l._resnerident:e>&an'i'i'r1ed 2 l'

witnesses as PW.1 and 2 ai3=d--lg",et 'm_;u~1§¢a  to P6.
Petitioners examinetl  to 9 and got.
marked EXRl    hearing both
the parties"'an.d pleadings. oral and
""t'haVt the charges alleged
against the '  as partly proved and

partly not lp.ro'vedvBy ecinside1'ir1g the gravity of charge.

 resp'o'rrdent. and the length of service

 the Tribunal passed the inipugned

jtidgi11entll':sVe't;ting aside the penalty of removal of

T"-.«._H,respon(lea'1t from service and in its place directed

   of three increments. The Tribunal further

Hdisrettted the petitioners to reinstate the respondent.

it with full backwages. Hence this writ petition.

 \"/JV

e/



(i

4. Though the rnatter is listed for  

hearing, the same is heard on merits  of"  

iearned advocates on both the side.  ..:'

5. The Tribiinai   entire
materiai on record   the'.::petitione1*s have
proved a peu11'f:f.;'   to prove
remaining' basis of the
evidence"   held that the
petitioners "prove the charges relating to

deﬂating of tyreseoi'Viehibeles. pasting posters on College

  and Veo"rn~pound walls. This finding of the

  'Tr_i'bu.n<;-iid is sidpported by evidence on record and 1 find

no4_Vjustitia:b1e ground to interfere with the same. It is

 not shdwn as to how the reasoning of the Tribunal is

'  'p.eIT*irerse and contrary to law and material on record.

ohm



«.4-

8. The Tribunal having held that a part of the

charge is proved, the extreme penalty of i'emovaiV--fr.om

service as shockingly disproportionate. At n

time, the Tribunal while setting aside   oi"-

penalty of removal from service direCte'd st.o_ppage'"of

three increments to respeondentig '*-Petitioner is": an

educational institution.  the  o§rdei' of

penalty till the date'  Tribunal, the

respondent has riot...._.w-oriced "i'r1'"*the' petitioners'
institution. iaijid tit;.;e're"*is'*no Contribution by him. Grant

of  huge financial burden on

the pei:itioi1ei's.,_I'gn to balance the interest of both

   gra'nt"**o*f'ft1il backwages is to be reduced to

  25_%-- iii the operative portion of the order

o1",the  there is some ambiguity with regard to

 effect .Qi' stoppage of increments, Continuity of service

  consequential benefits. Therefore, the impugned

-.orde1" of penalty requires modii'i(:.ation. For the reason

stated above the following:

éf 



ORDER

i] Writ pet:it:i()I'1 partly allowecl. ii] The impugned judgment is directing the petitiolieijs PO 3 f re-sponcierit with (§,(JI14'(iI'1L1iV1'ﬁ.}r_'"Of s;e'rvi{:e and consequential beneﬁts 25%' ﬂ*0m the date 0f.1'€II103:/€;*1 tilt} ti:-.e.,1"(:E:-._1_'i",»s.:'bf_reinstat,ement.. iii] The stoppage 'vthiiee to the resp0{1ir:1eI1,i1'r1h't'is with: ctimu ta five' 'eiiect. iv] Remaining «. Qtj§'1erﬁ'fi.;aspect:s, the" 'impugned judgment 1'e'mains' i{1fE[\.(.Et".'cT{1:ﬂld. hC;n C1ﬁst.u1'bed. V] Ordered 21t?()()Fdiif}g1y.

Sd/--

FUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court