Karnataka High Court
Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru vs Sri R Shivakumara Swamy on 31 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.812 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.490 OF 2023
IN WA NO 812 OF 2023:
BETWEEN
SREE TARALABALU JAGADGURU
EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
SIRIGERE-577 541.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.M. SAI APABHARANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARENDRA H.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. R. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
S/O REVANA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
KANNADA LANGUAGE TEACHER
SREE RUDRESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL
GOPPENAHALLI
2
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 215
2 . THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY)
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 23.01.2023 IN WRIT PETITION No.23123/2022 (S-RES)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS IT
DIRECTS THE APPELLANT TO PAY ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
IN CCC NO 490 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
R. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
S/O REVANA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
KANNADA LANGUAGE TEACHER
SREE RUDRESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL
3
GOPPENAHALLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 215
CELL: 8970948221
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. SRI VAMADEVAPPA H.V.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SREE TARALABAALU JAGATGURU
EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 541
2 . SRI. KRISHNOJI S. KARI CHANNAVAR
DIRECTOR (SECONDARY)
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY
K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
...ACCUSED
3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY
4
6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE FOR A1;
A2 SERVED;
SMT. MAMATHA SHEETY, AGA FOR PROFORMA R3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 14 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THEIR DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE AND DISHONEST AND WILL FULL DEFIANCE OF
THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 (ANNE-A) PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION No.23123/2022 (S-RES) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
IN THE INTEREST OF LAW, JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
5
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The Writ Appeal No.812/2022 is preferred against the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23123/2022 (S-RES). The Contempt of Court Case No.490/2023 is filed alleging disobedience of the same Order.
2. We have heard Smt. K.M. Sai Apabharana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the Writ Appeal, Shri. Siddaiah L, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the Writ Appeal and for the complainant in the Contempt of Court Case, Shri. Ashok G.V, learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 in the Contempt of Court Case and Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 in the Writ Appeal and for proforma respondent No.3 in the Contempt of Court Case.
3. Respondent No.1 was a Teacher in the aided school run by the appellant. It was alleged that he had 6 forcibly taken a Service Register from the Headmaster's chambers and burnt it in the presence of school children. The Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the Teacher and a letter dated 02.01.2014 was sent to the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions ('DDPI' for short) by the appellant seeking the appointment of a nominee to conduct the enquiry. The DDPI vide letter dated 04.12.2014 appointed a Sole Enquiry Officer. An enquiry was conducted and respondent No.1 was found guilty of the charges.
4. Following a Show-Cause Notice issued on 13.04.2019, an order dated 29.07.2021 was passed enforcing the punishment of compulsory retirement on respondent No.1. Though, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal as Appeal No.3/2022, the same was dismissed by Order dated 23.09.2022.
5. A writ petition was filed challenging the Order dated 29.07.2021 as well as the Order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 23.09.2022. The learned Single Judge found that the proceedings in enquiry were clearly faulty inasmuch as Rule 21 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions 7 (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 ('1999 Rules' for short) provided for the constitution of a committee to conduct an enquiry against a Teacher of an Educational Institution. In that view of the matter, the Order of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner as well as the Order dismissing the appeal were found to be bad in law. The orders were therefore set aside and respondent No.1 was directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits permissible in accordance with law, reserving liberty to initiate the proceedings against him in proper form.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was not put on notice and heard before the Order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Further, it is contended that the allegations raised against respondent No.1 are grave in nature and therefore, the direction for payment of consequential benefits was unjustified. It is further submitted that no back wages are payable to respondent No.1 since he had not worked during 8 the relevant time. It is further contended that further proceedings have thereafter been initiated against respondent No.1 and he has been proceeded against in accordance with law as well.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
• Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324;
• Mulin Sharma v. State of Assam and others reported in (2016) 14 SCC 208;
• R. Shekar v. The Divisional Controller
passed in W.A.No.131/2022 dated
15.02.2022;
• U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and
Others v. Udai Narain Pandey, reported in MANU/SC/2321/2005;
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. S.C. Sharma, reported in MANU/SC/0037/2005, and • Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and Others, reported in MANU/SC/0349/2005.9
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would, on the other hand, submit that Rule 21 of the 1999 Rules, specifically provides for the conduct of an enquiry by an enquiry committee. It was an admitted case that there was no enquiry committee constituted in the instant case. Moreover, respondent No.1 had not been served with any Articles of Charges and the enquiry was not conducted as provided in the 1999 Rules. It is therefore contended that since the Order of Penalty as well as the appellate Order stood quashed, respondent No.1 is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that the procedure prescribed under the 1999 Rules had not been followed before inflicting the punishment on respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on several judgments to contend that the grant of back wages on reinstatement is not automatic. 10 However, we notice that, the instant case is one where the enquiry was conducted by an incompetent officer and without following the procedure prescribed under the 1999 Rules which are admittedly applicable. In such a case, we have no hesitation to hold that since the enquiry itself was by an incompetent authority, the punishment imposed is non est in law and the consequence of quashing of the said punishment would be a reinstatement with consequential benefits. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge had specifically accepted the finding that the Authority which held the enquiry was not competent under the Rules to do so. In this appeal also, the appellant does not have any contention that the enquiry conducted against respondent No.1 herein was a properly authorized enquiry.
10. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention that back wages would not be payable since respondent No.1 did not work during the relevant time. Since the enquiry itself was found to be bad in law, the contention that Non-Employment Certificate has to be produced by respondent No.1 to claim 11 back wages is also completely untenable. However, we notice that the Management was not primarily responsible for the error in appointing the nominee of the Department as Enquiry Officer instead of a Committee as provided under the Rules. Since the appellant is an Aided Institution and the error in conduct of the enquiry was not fully attributable to the appellant, it would be for the Department to make good any claims for salary or allowances payable to respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
11. In the result:-
(i) The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The amount due to respondent No.1 as benefits consequent on reinstatement shall be calculated and paid within two months from today.
(ii) The appellant shall take necessary steps to forward the bills for payment of the amount to the concerned Educational Authorities, who shall take appropriate steps to see that the amount is calculated and disbursed.
12
(iii) The Contempt of Court Case is closed with liberty to reopen, if the amount is not paid as directed above.
All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand disposed of in both the matters.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*