Bangalore District Court
Sri. C.Shanthappa Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2021
1
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2021
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA, B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
M.A.(E.A.T.)No.19/2016
APPELLANT : Sri. C.Shanthappa Raju,
S/o.Late J.Chowrappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Asst.Master (Under Suspension),
Sacred Heart Boys High School,
Bengaluru-560 025.
R/at No.117, "Nirmala Mary Nilaya",
2nd Cross, 1st Main Road,
Kempegowda Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 019.
(By Sri.H.N.Manjunath, Advocate)
Vs/
2
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Its Secretary,
Primary and Secondary Education,
M.S.Building,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Commissioner for Public
Instructions,
Nrupatunga Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Dy.Director Public
Instructions,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru-560 002.
4. The Secretary,
Sacred Heart Boys High School,
Archdiocesan Board of Education,
No.62, Richmond Road,
Ashoknagar,
Bengaluru-560 025.
5. Sri. J.N. Alasingar,
Advocate,
No.193, 5th Main,
3rd Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
6. Sri.C.L.George,
Retired Head Master,
3
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
St.Aloyains High School,
Cox Town,
Bengaluru.
7. Smt. Rajeshwari,
Subject Inspector,
Office of the Deputy Director
Of Public Instructions,
Bengaluru South District,
Kalasipalyam,
Bengaluru-560 002.
(By. Sri. I-Addl.Dist.Govt.Pleader for
R.No.1 to 3)
(By Sri. M.P.Srikanth, Advocate for R.4)
(By Miss. L.Navya, Advocate for R.5)
(By Miss. Aishwarya, Advocate for R.6
and 7)
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal U/s.94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 being aggrieved by the order passed in No.ABE/SHBHS/001/2016 dated 6.9.2016 by the 4th respondent and set aside the same and seeking direction to 4th respondent to reinstate the appellant back into service as Asst.Master with back wages, 4 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 continuity of service and with all consequential benefits and to treat the period of suspension as on duty and to pay all monetary benefits admissible to the appellant (herein after referred as impugned judgment and order).
2. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court for the purpose of convenience and for better appreciation of their contentions.
3. In the memorandum of appeal, appellant has prayed to interfere into the impugned order on the ground that impugned order is erroneous. When the matter was seized before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, 4th respondent had no power to pass dismissal order on the appellant. Respondent No.4 had not properly evaluated the evidence adduced by prosecution and defence side. Enquiry conducted by the enquiry committee has violated law laid down by several 5 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 judgments. No reasoned order is passed by the enquiry committee. For the said reasons, appellant has prayed to interfere into the impugned order and set aside the same.
4. Along with memorandum of appeal, appellant has produced certified copy of impugned order, copy of memorandum of appeal U/s.130 of the Karnataka Education Act, complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.40/2012, letter from Sacred Heart Boys High School, proceedings of Archdiocesan Board of Education for Sacred Heart Boys' High School.
5. Respondents No.4 to 7 appeared through counsels. Respondents No.1 to 3 appeared through I- Addl. Dist.Govt.Pleader.
6. Respondent No.4, Secretary, Sacred Heart Boys High School has filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections, respondent No.4 has submitted 6 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 para wise reply for averments made in the memorandum of appeal. Further, respondent No.4 has submitted that law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. For the said reasons, respondent No.4 has pays to dismiss the application. Along with statement of objections, respondent No.4 has filed copy of order passed in Writ Petition No.35191/2-16 (S.D.) dated 14.11.2016 filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Respondents No.1 to 3 have also filed their statement of objections on 9.3.2020. In the said statement of objections also respondents No.1 to 3 have denied averments made in the memorandum of appeal by the appellant and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
8. Records relating to proceedings held by enquiry committee was called for but not produced by the respondent.
9. Heard arguments.
10. Now points arising for consideration are as under:
1. Whether disciplinary action taken against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record could be justified in terms of law?
2. Whether impugned order dt:06.09.2016 passed by the enquiry committee respondent No.4 in No.ABE/ SHBHS/001/ 2016 is valid?
3. Whether appellant is entitled for reinstatement?
4. Whether appellant is entitled for back wages till attaining superannuation?8
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
5. What Order?
11. It is answered on the aforesaid points are held as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order below, for the following:-
REASONS
12. POINTS NO.1 to 4:- These points are taken together for common discussions.
13. Perused impugned order passed by the Secretary, Archdiocesan Board of Education for Sacred Heart Boys' High School by holding disciplinary proceedings against petitioner, Assistant Master in the said school. Secretary of the Archdiocesan Board of 9 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 Education, Bengaluru awarded punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect.
14. Advocate for appellant has submitted that to test the order passed in departmental enquiry, appellant preferred this appeal. In the order of suspension dated 12.12.2013, name of the child alleged to have been abused was not mention. Departmental enquiry was not completed within six months from the date of institution. No order to reinstate the appellant was made by the respondent. Diet bata was not awarded in accordance with provisions of law. Averments made in the reply notice dated 1.12.2014 was not taken into consideration by the enquiry committee. Further, averments made in reply notice dated 4.12.2014 was not taken into consideration. 3 members of the enquiry committee are relatives to each other. Enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. 10
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 14.1) Advocate for appellant has further submitted that reasons for initiation of departmental enquiry is that appellant was in service for considerably long period of 20 years in the school run by the respondent No.4. In the month of December 2010, appellant submitted one requisition to the school committee seeking increment. There are no remarks in the service register of the appellant with respect to service referred by the appellant. Respondent No.4 was not replied for the requisition filed by the appellant. Again a reminder was filed by the appellant on 7.2.2012. To take revenge for filing requisition seeking increment by the appellant, a false complaint was foist against the appellant. Legal notice dated 7.2.2012 issued on behalf of the appellant was not replied by respondent No.4. Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner against respondent No.4. 11
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 To take revenge against the appellant, alleged false complaint was filed by instigating one of the student.
14.2) Advocate for appellant has further submitted that admissions elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 Deepak who is alleged victim was not properly considered by the enquiry committee. No sufficient opportunity was given to appellant to defend himself in the enquiry. In the requisition, only 3 out of 45 students are cited as witnesses.
14.3) Advocate for appellant has further submitted Special C.C.No. 149/2014 registered against petitioner for offence punishable U/s.9(f) and 10 of Pocso Act, came to be acquitted by judgment 3.12.2018. In the said case, head master of the school is the complainant. PCR registered by this appellant against head master is pending before the court. No cognizance on the said 12 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 complaint was taken by the trial court. Complaint lodged by the complainant is pending before the enquiry committee. No order is passed on the complaint filed by the complainant. With an ulterior motive to take revenge for claiming increment and other benefits, respondent No.4 Board of Directors passed impugned order of dismissal of appellant from service by way of punishment which is totally unjust and illegal.
14.4) Advocate for appellant has further submitted that pending Writ Petition filed by the appellant before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, respondent No.4 passed order of dismissal in the departmental enquiry which is illegal. Defence evidence adduced by the appellant in the departmental enquiry was not put to cross-examination by respondents side. Appellant was about to retire on March 2020. To prevent appellant from getting retirement benefits, respondent directors of the school passed 13 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 impugned order which is not sustainable in accordance with law. For the said reasons, advocate for the appellant has prayed to interfere into the impugned order of dismissal, set aside the same and reinstate appellant to service with backwages and all amenities.
15. Advocate for appellant relied upon following citation of judgments;
1. AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 2535 (State of Assam V/s. Mohan Chandra Kalita and another).
2. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570( Roop Singil Negi V/s. Punjab National Bank and others).
3. 2012(2) SLR 171 (Delhi) (Rakesh Kulhari V/s. Central Industrial Security Force).
4. 2012(2) SLR 443 (Pb. & Hry) (Housing Board Haryana V/s. S.B. Kumar Asstt. Engineer and another).
5. 2012(2) SLR 293 (Cal.) (The General Manager, South Eastern Railways & others V/s. Shyam Lal Roy).
14
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
6. Jammu and Kashmir High Court SWP No.411 of 1995. ( Chain Lal V/s. State).
7. 1989 K.S.L.J. 694 (Vasantha Prema D.P. V/s. State and another).
16. Despite repeated issuance of notice to produce records relating to departmental enquiry conducted against appellant, respondents had not produced such record before the court. Considering the materials produce by the appellant and the respondents, this court is proceeding to decide sustainability of the impugned order passed in the enquiry conducted by the Management of the respondent Sacred Heart Boys' High School, Richmond Road, Bengaluru.
17. Perused order passed by the Secretary Archdiocesan Board of Education, Bengaluru in reference No.ABE/SHBHS/002/2016 Dated:06.09.2016. To conduct disciplinary proceedings against appellant Sri.Shanthappa Raju, Assistant Master, Sacred Heart Boys' High School, 15 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 62 , Richmond Road, Ashok Nagara, Bengaluru - 560 025, a three members enquiry committee headed by Sri.J.N.Alasingar, Advocate, Chairmen and Sri.C.L.George, Educationist Member and Smt.Rajeshwari.D., Nominee from the department of Education, constituted to decide charges framed against the appellant. In the enquiry conducted by the aforesaid enquiry committee, it is held that charge No.1, 2 and 3 are proved against the appellant. After considering the report and by considering reply given by the appellant dated:17.02.2016, by accepting the report of the enquiry committee school authority awarded punishment of dismissal from the service by exercising power conferred under provisions of Rule 14(X) of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees of Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules 1999.
16
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
18. Perused statement of imputation of misconduct framed against the appellant. In the charges No.1 to 3 it is alleged that appellant conducting misconduct by subjecting students of 10 th Standard (2013-14 batch) to sexual abuse on several occasions. Perused reply given by the appellant for statement of imputations by way of written statement. In the said reply, appellant had denied all allegations made against him under charge No.1 to 3. It is the specific contention of the appellate that a Spl.C.C.No.149/2019 is pending alleging same allegations and he is expecting outcome of the said criminal case. Proceedings are in violation of Rule 7 of Chapter VI of the Code of Conduct contemplated in the Manual of Archdiocesan Board of Education. Initiation of proceedings against him by the Secretary and not by the School is in violation of Chapter VI of the Code of Conduct completed in the Manual of Archdiocesan Board 17 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 of Education. It is further stated by the appellant that all troubles started from the day when he submitted an application for time bound increment. For the said reason appellant has prayed to drop the proceedings. By not accepting the said explanation by way of reply given by the appellant, enquiry committee proceeded to conduct enquiry.
19. Perused depositions of witnesses examined on behalf of Secretary, Archdiocesan Board of Education and contents of exhibited documents. Perused admissions elicited in the cross examination of those witnesses. In the examination-in-chief, students who have examined on behalf of School Committee deposed by supporting allegations made against the appellant. However, in the cross examination, they have admitted that whatever deposed before the Committee was not mentioned in their complaints in the form of letter. Further students 18 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 admitted that no complaints were lodged by their parents even though they informed about sexual harassment made by appellant.
19.1) Mrs.Bernadine Lobo, Headmistress in Sacred Heart Boys' High School has also examined. In her evidence, Mrs.Bernadine Lobo, Headmistress has deposed that she made enquries about all teaching staff and came to know that 20 years time bound advance increment was withheld. She enquried the appellant on this issue. Mr.Satyanarayana, Senior most teacher of the school, told about harassing children, sexually abusing them by the Sri.Shanthappa Raju. She received complaints from boys. A police complaint was lodged in this regard. In the cross examination, Mrs.Bernadine Lobo has admitted that Mr.Satyanarayana did not show any written complaints by students. She cannot remember date of information given by Mr. Sathyanarayana. Further admitted that no 19 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 student had given written complaint to her, but it was given to the Manager. Further admitted that Manager of the school has not conducted any enquiry in her presence against Sri.Shanthappa Raju. Mrs.Bernadine Lobo admitted that she had not seen any sort of sexual harassment by Sri.Shanthappa Raju to students.
19.2) In the evidence of Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, (PW-5) who is mother of complaining student has deposed that her son complained about sexual harassment by the appellant. Further, she deposed that she had given complaint to the Manager of the School as per Ex.P.6.
19.3) In the evidence adduced by Ajay Singh (Pw.6) former student alleging sexual harassment by appellant, admitted in the cross examination that he has not given any petition against appellant, when he was in 8th and 9th standard.
20
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
20. In the written statement in the form of defence filed by the appellant, it is submitted that he came from respective family. His wife Smt.A.Chatarine aged 53 is teacher in St. Peter and Paul School, Goripalya, Bengaluru. He is having two sons. From 02.07.1990 till 11.11.2014, there were no complaints against him. His 23 years service was unblemished and extremely satisfactory. Trouble started when he completed his 20 years of service in the institution and requested for sanction of time bound advance increment. Said claim for time bound advance increment was as per rules of statement Government. Dispute for the said claim with the management gave room for initiation of false cases against him.
20.1) Appellant has further submitted that a PCR No.150/2020 dt:23.11.2020 was filed against him and five others on 23.11.2000, which was withdrawn by the 21 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 complainant by filing memo on 23.03.2001 before 11 th Addl. CCM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru. As per his requisition dated:01.12.2010 seeking time bound advance increment, he issued legal notice to the Headmaster and BEO on 07.02.2012. He filed case before the Commissioner of Public Instructions, Bengaluru on 17.10.2012 against Management and BEO in the matter of time bound advance increment. He filed PCR No.40/2012 dated:29.02.2012 against the Manager, Headmaster of the school, staff of the management in the Court of 11th ACMM, Bengaluru for offence punishable u/s 499 and 500 of IPC. As per GO No.DPAR 13 SDE 85, dt:03.07.1985, he was not reinstated in service by the management by revoking his suspension even though enquiry is not concluded within 12 months.
20.2) Appellant further submitted that witnesses are set-up by the management with sole object to trouble 22 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 him. He is falsely implicated in this case by the management for claim of time bound advance increment and for filing cases against the management and staff, members of the management, in the Court of law and in the Court of Commissioner of Public instructions, Bengaluru.
21. To substantiate the defence, appellant himself examined as DW-1, reiterated his defence, got exhibited documents in support of his contention. Also filed detailed written arguments. Perused reasons assigned by the enquiry committee for accepting the evidence adduced against the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that rules of natural justice is violated by the enquiry committee in conducting enquiry against him. Further, it is not case of the appellant that evidence adduced by the management is not the substantive legal evidence. Grievance of the appellant is that, disciplinary 23 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 action taken against the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence on record is not justifiable in terms of law for the reason that a false case was foist against him at the behest of the management for claiming 20 years time bound advance increment.
21.1) It is not in dispute that Spl.C.C.No.149/2014 came to be registered against appellant on the very set of facts and allegations of sexual harassment made by the students of the school in which appellant was the teacher. The said Spl.C.C.No.149/2014 was tried in the 50 th Addl. CC&SJ Court, Bengaluru. By Judgment dt:03.12.2018, appellant got acquitted by the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.149/2014. It is the submission of the appellant that Judgment passed in Spl.C.C.No.149/2014 is relevant to take into consideration for the reason that allegations and charges against him in the departmental enquiry and in Spl.C.C.No.149/2014 are arising out of same set of 24 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 facts. Appellant relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in (2009)2 Supreme Court cases 507 Head note 'C' on service law. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has described the manner in which documentary evidence required to be proved departmental enquiry. Further held that mere production of documents in not enough. In head note F of the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that subsequent acquittal by the Criminal Court on the self same evidence could not be ignored. Carefully perused law laid down in the said Judgment. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived on some evidence which is legally admissible. Provisions of Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceedings, but the principles of natural 25 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 justice are. It is clear from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that both departmental enquiry and criminal case is instituted on similar set of facts then, there is no embargo to take into consideration judgment or order passed by the criminal court in the departmental enquiry on the basis of selfsame evidence.
21.2) In Spl.C.C. No. 149/2014, a full fledged trial was conducted. Trial court has taken into consideration each and every set of facts, evidence adduced by all prosecution side witnesses more particularly evidence adduced by students arrayed as victims of sexual harassment by the appellant. After considering the admission elicited in the cross examination by the accused side, trial court has arrived to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove allegation of sexual harassment against accused / appellant u/s 9 (f) read with section 10 of POCSO Act 2012. Further, trial Court 26 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 accepted defence set up by the accused/appellant that to take revenge for claiming 20 year time bond advance increment, a false case was filed against him.
21.3) In view of the selfsame evidence of students complained against appellant alleging sexual harassment was not accepted by Criminal Court in conducting trial Spl.C.C.No. 149/2014, it is not correct to refuse to take the same into consideration to determine this appeal.
22. Advocate for appellant has submitted that this appeal is preferred to test the legality and validity of the order passed in departmental enquiry against the appellant, punishing him by severe punishment of dismissal from service. Departmental enquiry has not completed within six months from the date of framing of imputation. Despite request for reinstatement into service, management refused to reinstate the appellant 27 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 to the service. Even diet bata has not been sanctioned to the appellant. From the date of suspension, management had not taken the appellant into service which is violation of mandatory provisions of law governing departmental enquiry. Three members in the enquiry committee are relatives of each other. Trial in departmental enquiry was not in a fair manner. Reasons for initiation of departmental enquiry by the management was to take revenge for claim of the appellant for 20 years time bond advance increment. Respondent No.4 had not replied for legal notice dated 07.02.2012 issued on behalf of the appellant. Enquiry committee has not taken into consideration, admission elicited in the cross examination of PW-2 student who complained sexual harassment against the appellant. Only three students out of forty five cited in the requisition are examined. Commissioner of Public Instructions had not passed any order on appeal 28 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 preferred by this appellant. Evidence adduced by the appellant in support of his defence was not considered by the enquiry committee. Fact that defendant was not cross examined by the management was also not taken into consideration by the enquiry committee. Appellant is going to attain superannuation in the month of March 2020. When order/ judgment passed by the Criminal Court in Criminal case registered against the appellant on the same set of facts and self same set of evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry also, judgment/ order passed by the Criminal Court against the appellant cannot be ignored. 50th additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru acquitted the accused/appellant in Spl.C.C.No.149/2019 registered against appellant for offences punishable u/s 9(f) read with section 10 of POCSO Act. In the said judgment evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and the admission elicited in the 29 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 cross examination of those witnesses were thoroughly taken into consideration, evaluated to arrive for conclusion that allegations made against the appellant was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. It is settled position of law that strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable for proceedings in department enquiry. However, it is also settled that order passed in departmental enquiry shall be based on legal evidence. Any order passed in the department enquiry on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises can not be sustained.
24. Carefully perused evidence recorded by the of the enquiry committee. Perused impugned order passed by the enquiry committee. It is pertinent to note that before arrival for conclusion that imputation of charges No.1 to 3 are proved against the appellant, enquiry committee has not property appreciated and considered 30 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 admissions elicited in the cross examination of witnesses examined on behalf of management. Further, defence evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, document produced on behalf of the appellant was not properly taken into consideration is to arrive for conclusion that whether allegations made against the appellant by the management was proved to the extent of probabilities, to award extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Same set of evidence, defence put forward by the appellant before the Criminal Court in the trial on self same allegation was accepted. Trial court in the criminal case has arrived for conclusion on the basis of appreciation of evidence and appreciation of defence set up by the appellant. Trial Court in the criminal case has arrived for the conclusion that allegations made against the appellant is not proved by the prosecution side. Such being the situation, it is not correct to ignore conclusion 31 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 arrived by the Criminal Court and it is a relevant material to be taken into consideration to decide the fact whether impugned order passed by the enquiry committee should survive or not. This court is of the opinion that enquiry committee has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the management in accordance provisions of law governing departmental enquiry by considering admissions elicited in the cross examination of the witnesses. Further, enquiry committee has not properly appreciated and taken into consideration unchallenged version of defence set up by the appellant because evidence adduced by the appellant before enquiry committee was not cross examined by the management side to show that defence set up by the appellant was plausible and not acceptable. For the said reasons impugned order passed by the enquiry committee holding that imputations of charges against the appellant was 32 M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 proved and appellant is liable for dismissal from service is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record. Hence, impugned order dt:06.09.2016 passed by the enquiry committee respondent No.4 in No.ABE/SHBHS/001/2016 is not valid.
25. It is not in dispute that despite request made by the appellant, management was not inclined to reinstate him to service. Further it is not the case of the respondents that diet bata was sanctioned to the appellant during the period of his suspension from service. Further it is not in dispute that appellant served in the respondent institution for considerably long period of 20 years without any imputation. Hence, appellant is entitled for reinstatement for service as well as back wages for the period he remained under suspension. Advocate for appellant has submitted that appellant is going to retire from service in the month of March 2020. 33
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 This Court is of the opinion that appellant is entitled for full back wages till his attaining superannuation.
26. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Appellant is entitled for reinstate into service with full back wages. Period of suspension of the appellant shall be treated as "duty" for the purpose of retirement benefits available for the appellant as per provisions of law governing service conditions of the appellant. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative and point Nos. 3 and 4 are answered in the affirmative.
27. POINT NO.5 :- In view of findings on the above points No.1 to 4, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order is made: 34
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 ORDER Invoking provision U/s.94 of Karnataka Education Act 1983, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed.
Impugned order passed dt:06.09.2016 passed by the enquiry committee respondent No.4 in No.ABE/SHBHS/001/2016 is set aside.
Appellant is directed to re-instate into service if not attained superannuation.
Period of suspension of the appellant shall be treated as "duty" for the purpose of retirement benefits.
Appellant is entitled for full back wages during the period of suspension from service.
(Dictated to the typist directly on computer, typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of February, 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.35
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016 9.2.2021 Judgment pronounced in the open court Vide separate judgment ORDER Invoking provision U/s.94 of Karnataka Education Act 1983, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed.
Impugned order passed dt:06.09.2016 passed by the enquiry committee respondent No.4 in No.ABE/SHBHS/001/2016 is set aside.
Appellant is directed to re-instate into service if not attained superannuation.
Period of suspension of the appellant shall be treated as "duty" for the purpose of retirement benefits.
Appellant is entitled for full back wages during the period of suspension from service.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.