Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sadhashivaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.10723/2018 (S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.47424/2015 (S-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.10723/2018 (S-R) :
Between:
Sri. Sadhashivaiah,
S/o. Nanjundaiah,
Aged 62 years,
R/at Renuka Nilaya,
80 feet Road, 1st Main,
13th Cross, Mahalakshmi Nagara,
Batawadi, Tumkur - 572103. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. K.N. Nitish for Sri. K.V.Narasimhan, Adv)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Department of Primary and
Higher Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560001.
2. Director (Higher Education),
Department of Public Instructions,
Bangalore - 560001.
2
3. Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Madhugiri, Tumkur District - 572101.
4. Block Education Officer,
Department of Public Instructions,
Pavagada Town,
Tumkur District - 561202.
5. Mahathma Gandhi Memorial
Education Society (R),
8th Cross, 2nd Main, S.N.Puram,
Tumkur District - 572101
By its administrator. ... Respondents
(By Sri. E.S. Indiresh, AGA for R.1 to 4;
By Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., Adv for R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
25.01.2018 passed by the 4th respondent at annexure-G and
direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to re-consider the
representation of the petitioner at annexure-E and F and grant
him the sought relief within time frame and cause compliance of
the order passed by 1st respondent at annexure-B.
In W.P.NO.47424/2015 (S-RES) :
Between:
Sri. Mahathma Gandhi Memorial
Educational Society (Regd)
Represented by its Founder Secretary,
Sri. Doddananjaiah,
S/o. late Maraiah,
Aged about 71 years,
18th Cross, II Main,
Someshwarapuram,
Tumkur - 572 102. ... Petitioner
3
(By Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Primary and
Secondary Education,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560001.
2. The Appellate Authority &
Deputy Secretary to the State (Services),
Department of Education,
6th Floor, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Commissioner,
Department of Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Director,
Department of Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
5. The Deputy Director,
Department of Public Instructions,
Tumkur North, Madhugiri Town,
Tumkur - 572 132.
6. The Block Education Officer,
Department of Public Instructions,
Pavagada Town,
Tumkur District - 572 116.
7. Sri. M.N.Sadashivaiah,
S/o. Late Nanjundaiah,
4
Aged about 59 years,
Worked as Head Master,
Now under Suspension
Vide order dated 09.06.2014,
R/at Renuka Nilaya, 1st Main Road,
80 feet Road, 13th Cross,
Mahalakshminagar, Batawadi,
Tumkur - 572 102. ... Respondents
(By Sri. E.S. Indiresh, AGA for R.1 to 6;
By Sri. K.N.Nitish for K.V.Narasimhan, Adv. for R7)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated
28.09.2015 passed in R.P.No.146/2014 by R2, wherein directed
the petitioner management to pay the salary from June, 2014 to
till date within 15 days from the date of the order, which is
produced and marked as annexure-L as the same is illegal,
arbitrary, capricious and passed without application of mind and
etc.
These writ petitions coming on for hearing on
interlocutory application this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.10723/2018 approached the first respondent in Revision Petition No.146/2014 under the provisions of Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The said petition was allowed on 28th September, 2015, in which the first respondent directed the fifth respondent - Mahathma Gandhi Memorial Education Society (R) to release the salary of 5 the petitioner from June 2014. The petitioner also filed Revision Petition in No.28/2015 before the first respondent and the first respondent by order dated 28.09.2015 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of suspension. Since the said orders have not been implemented by the fifth respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Petitioner has also made a prayer to set aside Annexure `G' dated 25th January, 2018 passed by the fourth respondent - Block Education Officer, wherein it is held that the order passed by the first respondent could not be implemented, since enquiry was pending against the petitioner and writ petition was filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.No.47424/2015. The fourth respondent also informed the petitioner that unless the writ petition was disposed of, the order passed by the first respondent at Annexures `A' and `B' cannot be implemented.
3. It is also submitted that the ground taken by the petitioner in the connected writ petition does not hold water since petitioner has already retired from service and the fifth respondent was also a party in the writ petition. It is submitted 6 that there are no justifiable grounds and hence the writ petition be allowed and order at Annexure `G' passed by the fourth respondent be set aside and fifth respondent be directed to implement the order passed by the first respondent as per Annexure `B'.
4. In the connected W.P.No.47424/2015 filed by the respondent - management of Mahathma Gandhi Memorial Education Society (R), the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the second respondent - Appellate Authority and Deputy Secretary to the State, Department of Education, in Revision Petition No.146/2014 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and passed without application of mind and also to declare that the second respondent has no locus standi to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the seventh respondent under Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which is contrary to Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, without questioning the order of suspension dated 09.06.2014 passed by the Management before the competent authority. The order of 7 suspension is purely a decision taken by the Management. When such action is taken, it is not open for the respondent - Government to entertain the petition under Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. The petitioner has already retired from service. He is a pensioner. At this juncture, the reasons which are not sustainable in the eye of law cannot be taken for the purpose of benefit of salary or pensionary benefits. It is the case of the respondent - Management that the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry. Hence, denial of salary cannot be accepted, since suspension itself is not a punishment. It is only a measure to make a person aware of certain wrong doings committed by him and to hold an enquiry against him. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the fifth respondent were parties before the first respondent and the said order has been passed after affording opportunity to both the parties. Hence, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to rehear the matter. I have gone through 8 Annexure `B' and do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent in directing the respondent
- management to pay salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner.
7. Under the circumstances, W.P.No.10723/2018 filed by the petitioner is allowed and W.P.No.47424/2015 filed by the respondent - management Mahathma Gandhi Memorial Education Society (R) is dismissed.
8. The management of the fifth respondent is hereby directed to pay the arrears of salary as directed by the first respondent and comply the same within a period of four weeks from today.
In view of disposal of main matter, I.A.2/2018 for direction also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mgn/-