Karnataka High Court
Shri. Jagadguru Moorusavirmath Vidya vs Prakash S/O. Basavaraj Hiremath on 30 June, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.78669/2013 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAGADGURU MOORUSAVIRMATH VIDYA
VARDHAK SANGH INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
SHRI ARAVIND KUBASAD,
MOORUSAVIRMATH COMPLEX,
HUBLI, DIST DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. V P KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. PRAKASH S/O. BASAVARAJ HIREMATH
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: EX-EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
TRAINING CENTER,
R/O. KAMALESHWAR NAGAR,
HUBLI 580 024,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR
BELGAUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE
EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
DEPARTMENT, NAVANAGAR
:2:
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRTION)
EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING DEPARTMENT
KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, NEAR KMF DIARY CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560 029.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT &
TRAINING DEPARTMENT,
KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR KMF DIARY CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560 029.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. ANANT P SAVADI, ADV. FOR C/R1
SRI. K.S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN M.A.[E.A.T.] NO.2/2012
DTD.08.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 8.4.2013, passed by the Prl. District and :3: Sessions Judge and Education Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad (for short Appellate Tribunal) in M.A.(E.A.T.) No.2/2012 vide Annexure-G.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-G, the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, has set aside the order of dismissal dated 22.2.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Case No.SJMVS/2011-12/62 and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent into service with full back wages.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The first respondent was working as a Principal in Shri Jagadguru Moorusaviramath Vidyavardhaka Sangha Industrial Training Centre, Moorusavirmath Campus, Hubli. The Management received a complaint from some students stating that the Principal has taken `3,200/- each from 16 :4: students promising them that they will be passed in the examination. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged by them. The Management after receipt of the complaint kept the first respondent under suspension. The Management also filed a criminal case in C.C.No.356/2007. The Management after taking permission from the Joint Director initiated departmental enquiry by appointing one Sri. Basavaraj Byali, the Secretary of Karnataka Chamber of Commerce, Hubli as Enquiry Officer. After some time, Sri. Basavaraj Byali returned the papers expressing his inability to conduct the enquiry. Subsequently one Sri. G.R.Ron was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the 1st respondent are proved. The Management issued show cause notice to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent replied the show cause notice. Thereafter, by order dated 22.2.2012 the 1st respondent was terminated from service. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Prl. :5: District and Sessions Judge and Education Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad, in M.A.(E.A.T.)No.2/12. The learned Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, by order dated 8.4.2013 has set aside the order of dismissal dated 22.2.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has directed the Management to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with back wages. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner- Management has filed this writ petition.
5. The 1st respondent has filed statement of objections contending that the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, has elaborately discussed the evidence on record and holding that the evidence does not prove the charge against the 1st respondent has set aside the order of dismissal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, does not call for interference.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also :6: submitted that the learned Prl. District & Sessions Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the Enquiry Officer considering the evidence of MWs 1 to 5 and confession statement of the 1st respondent has recorded a finding that the charges against the first respondent are proved. The Disciplinary Authority has accepted the same and order of dismissal has been passed. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in reversing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He also submitted that the evidence of MWs 1 to 5 and the confession statement of the 1st respondent clearly establish the charge against the 1st respondent. The Appellate Tribunal without properly considering the material on record has reversed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:
AIR 1977 S.C. page 1512 :7: 2009 (2) AIR Kar R 406 2000(5) K.L.J. Sh.N.13
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly held that the charge against the 1st respondent is not proved and therefore, has reversed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further he submitted that the 1st respondent was acquitted by the Magistrate in C.C.No.356/2007 on 19.3.2008. The petitioner was kept under suspension on 18.10.2006. Charge sheet was served on 22.8.2007. The charges were vague without any details. Further he submitted that the two students who were examined on behalf of the Management have not stated anything regarding payment of the amount to the 1st respondent. MWs 3, 4 and 5 are only hearsay witnesses. DWs 2 and 3 have been examined to show that confession statement was made under compulsion. The Appellate :8: Tribunal taking into consideration that the material on record does not establish the charge against the 1st respondent has reversed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. Inviting my attention to Section 96(3) of the Education Act, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has ample powers to appreciate the evidence on record. He therefore submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent placed reliance on the following decisions:
ILR 2003 Kar 3066 (2009)2 SCC 570 (2006)5 SCC 88 AIR 2013 S.C. 2098
8. The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order.
:9:
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for
interference?
11. It is relevant to note, the 1st respondent was working as a Principal in Shri Jagadguru Moorusavirmath Vidya Vardhak Sangh Industrial Training Centre, Hubli. Some students have lodged a complaint alleging that the 1st respondent has taken `3,200/- each from 16 students promising them that they will be passed in the examination. A criminal case in C.C.No.356/2007 has been filed against the 1st respondent. After trial, the 1st respondent has been acquitted by order dated 19.3.2008 which has become final. On 18.10.2006, the 1st respondent has been kept under suspension. Till 22.8.2007 no charge has been issued to the 1st respondent. It is only on 22.8.2007 charge sheet has been issued to the 1st respondent as per Annexure-B. : 10 :
12. Perusal of Annexure-B shows that it lacks details. It is stated that from 16 students of Radio & TV Mechanic Trade of 2004-2006 batch the 1st respondent accepted a sum of `3,200/- each that they will be passed in the examination. Except this, the name of the students, the details of payment, the date, the time and place are not available. However, based on this, enquiry has been initiated against the 1st respondent. The Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry has submitted his report holding that the charge against the 1st respondent is proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer has passed an order of termination dated 22.2.2012. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 8.4.2013 has reversed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service.
13. In the disciplinary proceedings the Management has examined in all five witnesses i.e., MWs 1 to 5. MWs 1 and 2 are the students. They have deposed that they know : 11 : the Principal and they were studying in Radio & TV Mechanic Trade Branch. Their names are found in the complaint lodged by the students to the Chairman of the Managing Committee. They have identified their signatures in the complaint. Except this, MWs 1 and 2 have not stated anything about the payment of money to the 1st respondent. Apart from this, MWs 1 and 2 have been examined in the criminal case. They have turned hostile. In their cross examination they have stated that it is true that they were examined in criminal case and there they have stated that they have not paid any amount to the Principal and they have not stated before the police that they have paid any amount to the Principal. From the evidence of MWs 1 and 2 it is clear their evidence does not prove the charge against the 1st respondent. Insofar as MWs 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, they have no personal knowledge and they have not seen the students paying the amount to the 1st respondent. Their evidence does not prove the charge against the 1st respondent. Insofar as confession statement : 12 : is concerned, DWs 2 and 3 have deposed the circumstances under which the confession statement was made. Apart from this, perusal of the confession statement shows that the 1st respondent has not confessed anything regarding the charge against him. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the charge against the 1st respondent is not proved. The Enquiry Officer has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Acquittal of the 1st respondent in the criminal case has not been considered. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: