Karnataka High Court
Sri C Ramachandraiah vs The Principal on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.51717 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKA GANGAIAH
56 YEARS, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT
ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH
DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NEAR JNANBHARATHI CAMPUS
BDA OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560 056.
AND ALSO RESIDING AT
NO.56, 6TH CROSS, BALAJINAGAR
MALATHIHALLI
BENGALURU-560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKESH A H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NEAR JNANBHARATHI CAMPUS
BDA OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560 056.
2. PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA
WELFARE TRUST
1ST M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
2
BENGALURU-560 010.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R3;
SRI HARISH H V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12.01.2017 PASSED IN M A (EAT) 5/2010 BY THE
HON'BLE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND III
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-P BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 94(1) OF KARNATAKA
EDUCATION ACT, 1983, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER
TO THE POST OF SUPERINTENDENT BY PAYING THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
PETITION.
IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 12.01.2017, in MA (EAT) No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Educational Appellate Tribunal and the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dismissing the petition.
3
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the appellant was appointed as First Division Assistant with the 1st respondent-College, on 01.04.1992 and thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 23.07.2005. It is further stated in the writ petition that one Sri K.V.Krishnaprasad, who was working as Assistant Instructor on temporary basis, has applied for the post of Foreman in terms of the notification dated 11.06.2008. Apart from the requisite qualification, a candidate must possess minimum two years of experience in the field. The petitioner has scrutinized the application from the eligible candidates including the application made by the said K.V.Krishnaprsad, and prepared the list of documents furnished by the said K.V.Krishnaprasad, and left the column meant for experience as blank. The Selection Committee conducted interview on 28.09.2008 and selected the said K.V.Krishnaprasad to the post of Forman. It is further stated in the writ petition that after five months, the said 4 K.V.Krishnaprasad lodged complaint on 04.02.2009 to the Managing Committee, making allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has demanded Rs.30,000/- from the said K.V.Krishnaprasad, for helping him in getting employment in the respondent-Institution. The Selection Committee is also consisting of one Shivashankar-Assistant Professor, complained against the petitioner with regard to the said incident. Based on the aforementioned complaints, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering has conducted preliminary investigation and Departmental Enquiry was initiated by the respondent-Management by issuing charge- sheet. The petitioner was kept under suspension, from 14.02.2009, however, the said order was recalled on 09.07.2009 and petitioner was reinstated into service in- charge of admission Section. Enquiry was conducted and Enquiry report was submitted on 19.12.2009 holding that out of charges, one charge is proved and based on the reply made by the petitioner, the respondent-Management committee, imposed punishment, demoting the petitioner to the post of 5 FDA by order dated 24.06.2010. There afterwards salary was re-fixed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal in MA(EAT) No.5 of 2010 and the Tribunal after considering the material on record, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri A.H.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.S.Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
4. Sri A.H.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the article of charges are not specific about the allegation made against the petitioner. The articles of charges did not reflect the narration of facts and the voice record of the said Shivashankar and K.V.Krishnaprasad has not been proved. He further contended that, the charges leveled against the petitioner and the 6 allegations made in the complaint are distinct and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution contended that, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and after following the procedural requirement and evidence of the complainant- K.V.Krishnaprasad was corroborated by Shivashankar and therefore, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper and quantum of punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that, the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was fair and proper, however, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documents on 7 record. It is not in dispute that out of two charges, charge No.1 was proved by the respondent-Institution. The Enquiry Officer solely based on the observation that the respondent- Institution has failed to produce the Compact Disk of conversation between the petitioner, Shivashankar and K.V.Krishnaprasad has arrived at a conclusion that charge No.2 has not been proved. However, the Tribunal on appreciating the application submitted by the said K.V.Krishnaprasad on 24.06.2008 (Ex.R31), the petitioner has put round seal of the college with date and initials, however, the experience certificate was included in the application said to have been prepared on 28.09.2008, and the said certificate has been inserted along with the application. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, appreciating the entire documents on record in the right perspective and given finding at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment.
7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the Tribunal has appreciated the entire material on record and 8 applying the principle for laid down by this court and Hon'ble Apex Court arrived at a conclusion to uphold the order of Disciplinary Authority, demoting the petitioner to the post of FDA. Taking into consideration the factual aspect on record that, this Court is having limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE SB