Bangalore District Court
Smt.S.K.Rekha vs M/S. M.S.Ramaiah Institute Of on 13 November, 2019
1
M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 13th day of November, 2019
PRESENT: Sri. SACHIN KAUSHIK.R.N., B.Sc., LL.M.,
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
M.A.(E.A.T.) No: 14/2014
Appellant Smt.S.K.Rekha,
Aged about 46 years,
W/o .Sri.Vinod Kumar,
Residing at 13, AMS Layout Extension,
Vth Stage, Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560097.
by Sri. Phadke.N.G., Advocate
vs.
Respondents 1. M/s. M.S.Ramaiah Institute of
Technology, M.S.Ramaiah Nagar,
MSRIT Post, Bangalore-560054,
Represented by its Principal.
2. M/s.Gokula Education Foundation,
Vidya Soudha, M.S.Ramaiah Nagar,
MSRIT Post, Bangalore-560054,
Represented by its Chairman.
R1 & R2-by Sri. Pradeep.S.Sawkar, Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Appellant has filed this Appeal u/S.94 of The Karnataka Education Act, 1983, to set aside the Termination Order Dated 10-6-2013 with full back- wages, Continuity of Service and Consequential Benefits with 18% interest per annum, and for adequate compensation.
2M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014
2) The Appellant states that she was appointed as Assistant Professor on 29-8-2002 in Respondent No.1 Institution. She is B.E. in Chemical Engineering from Karnataka Regional Engineering College. Her salary as on June 2013 was Rs.82,221/-. False Charge sheet was given to her on 27-3-2012 relating to misappropriation, and was terminated on 10-6-2013 without following principles of natural justice, with effect from 31-7-2013, and hence the Appeal.
3) The Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed Objections that Appeal is badly time barred by about nine months, and Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Appellant was appointed as Manager (Training) on 29-8-2002. The Probation Period was 2 years, and on completion, her appointment was made permanent. An event called 'E-Week' was organized in February 2012, for which sanctioned amount was Rs.50,000/-. Appellant collected Rs.1,76,000/- from external sponsors. The duty of Appellant was to provide Training and Entrepreneurship Skills and Development to the students. The Appellant did not render accounts, and had made students to spend out of their own pockets. On 26-3-2012, Appellant was called for meeting in this regard, and suspended on 27-3-2012.
3M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 Charge sheet was furnished, and Appellant gave Explanation Dated 29-3-2012. On 5-4-2012, Enquiry Committee was constituted and Appellant was asked to produced Approval to conduct E-Week, Estimated Budget, and its Approval, Permission to collect money from sponsors, and amount collected. The Appellant did not respond, and some Bills were unsigned, Explanation not satisfactory, and hence rejected by Committee, and informed Appellant on 21-4-2012. On 30-4-2012, Questionnaires were given to Appellant by Respondent No.2, to answer over expenditure, purchases, approval, and Appellant did not answer. On 2-5-2012, Appellant was given Show Cause Notice for behaving in rude manner with Principal. On 16-7-2012, another Show Cause Notice was issued to render accounts. On 18-1-2013, Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered, and Appellant was notified to attend on 19-3-2013 before Sri.N.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, and Labour Consultant. The Suspension Order Dated 27-3-2012 was revoked, subject to result of Enquiry, and Appellant joined on 18-1-2013, but did not participate in Enquiry.
4M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014
4) On 13-2-2013, Appellant was posted to Bio- Technology Department, and Respondents found through complaints of students Dated 16-3-2013, not to the mark. On 1-4-2013, a Memo was given that her services may not be needed from next Semester. Appellant replied on 3-4-2013 accepting her inability to teach. As such, the Termination Order Dated 10-6-2013 is legal, and Appeal be dismissed.
5) The Court has framed following 4 Issues:
1. Whether the Respondents prove that Domestic Enquiry conducted by them is fair and proper?
2. Whether the Respondents prove that Appeal is barred by time?
3. Whether the Appellant proves that he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?
4. What Order?
6) a) The Appellant has examined herself as P.W.1, and got 91 documents exhibited.
b) The Respondents have examined their Authorized Representative as R.W.1, and Accounts Officer as R.W.2, and got 43 documents exhibited.
5M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014
7) Heard Learned Advocate for Appellant, and perused all documents.
8) The answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 - In the Negative, Issue No.4 - As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
9) Issues No .1 and 3 : As the Issues No.1 and 3 are interconnected, they are taken together for consideration.
b) The Respondents have produced the Order Dated 10-6-2013, Ex.R34, Reply to Memo Dated 3-4-2013 by Appellant, Ex.R22 with respect to teaching, Show-Cause Notice Dated 18-1-2013 to attend Enquiry on 9-2-2013 is marked as Ex.R16, Ex.R12 is Report Dated 29-6-2012 of the Accounts Examining Committee, Ex.R14 is Explanation for Show- Cause of Appellant, and the same in Paragraph (f), the Appellant has admitted that students were asking for re-reimbursement, Prizes and Certificates that they have won, and Companies for Valedictory Function to 6 M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 distribute prizes, and has further asked for en-cashing Sponsorship Cheques as name of Respondents' Institution is at stake. This evidence clearly reveals and establishes that Appellant had made students to pay, and she has collected Sponsorship Cheques. But, Appellant has not produced Permission from the Institute to collect Sponsorship amounts. If Appellant as Manager Training then of Engineering College, makes students to pay from their pockets without authorization or issuing Receipts to them, and collecting amount from market as Sponsors without authority, it is grave misconduct that diminishes and degrades the very Institution itself. Such grave misconduct also gives bad lessons to students, and students will never feel secured, learning under Appellant. Even evidence of R.W.2 clarifies the Report, Ex.R12. Hence, the Court finds that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper and legal, and Appellant is not entitled for reinstatement with back-wages, and accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative , and Issue No.3 in Negative.
10) Issue No.2: The Termination Order is dated 10-6-2013. Appeal ought to have been filed in 3 months u/s. 94 of Karnataka Education Act, but it is 7 M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 filed on 16-10-2014, causing delay of about 1 year 1 month 8 days which is highly inordinate. The reasons over ill-health, Review Petition, etc. mentioned for condoning delay, Appellant being highly educated, does not appear justifiable. In law, even delay of single day should be satisfactorily explained, but here, the delay is more than a year, and hence for this reason too, the Appeal fails, as laid down in decision reported in AIR July, 2014 Pg.1. The delay is not condoned, and this Issue is answered in the Affirmative.
11) Issue No.4: For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The Appeal filed by the Appellant U/S. 94 of The Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of November, 2019) (SACHIN KAUSHIK.R.N) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
8M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Appellant:
P.W.1 - S.K.Rekha List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 - Mr.N.V.R.Naidu R.W.2 - B.K.Nanje Gowda List of documents exhibited for the Appellant :
Ex.P1 - Appointment Order Dated 29-8-2002 Ex.P2 - B.E. Convocation Certificate Ex.P3 - M.Tech. Certificate Ex.P4 - Grade Point Average Sheet Ex.P5 - Provisional PHD Selection Order Ex.P6 - Pay Slip for the month of June 2013 Ex.P7 - Copy of legal Notice Ex.P8 - Speed Post Acknowledgment Ex.P9 - Reply of Respondent No.1 Ex.P10 -Termination Order Exs.P11 & P12 - 2 Representations to Respondents. Exs.P13 to P54 - Postal Receipts Exs.P55 to P74 - Postal Acknowledgments Exs.P75 to P89 - Speed Post Acknowledgments Ex.P90 - True copy of Memo Dated 2-5-2012 Ex.P91 - Reply of Appellant Dated 3-5-2012 Ex.P91(a) - Initial of Official 9 M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 List of documents exhibited for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 - Appointment Order with Biodata of Appellant Ex.R2 - Acceptance Letter Ex.R3 - Note Dated 23-1-2012 of Respondent No.2 Exs.R4 & R5 - Office Orders of Respondent No.1 Ex.R6 -Letter Dated 29-3-2012 of Appellant Exs.R7 & R8 - Office Letters Ex.R9 - Office Order Exs.R10 & R11 - Memos issued by Respondents Ex.R12 - Report of Committee Ex.R13 - Notice Ex.R14 - Explanation of Appellant Ex.R15 - Note of Respondent No.1 Ex.R16 - Order of Respondent No.1 Ex.R17 - Letter of Appellant Ex.R18 - Office Order of Respondent No.1 Exs.R19 to R20- Representations of Students Ex.R21 - Memo issued by Respondent No.1 Ex.R22 - Explanation of Appellant Exs.R23 & R24 - Communications Dated 9-4-2013 and 5-6-2013 of Respondent No.2 Ex.R25 & R26 - Service Rules of Gokula Education Foundation and Conduct Rules meant for MSRIT Ex.R27 - Copy of the RTI Application Ex.R28 - Information furnished by KSRTC under RTI Act dated 15.11.2012 Ex.R29 - Note of Registrar (Administration) of the college Ex.R30 - Internal note of Principal Ex.R31 - Reply dated 6.5.2013 Ex.R33 - Internal note dated 15.5.2013 Ex.R33 - Communication dated 16.5.2013 Ex.R34 - Office order dated 10.6.2013 Ex.R35 - Legal notice dated 20.7.2013 Ex.R36 - Reply notice dated 27.7.2013 10 M.A.(E.A.T.) No.14/2014 Ex.R37 - letter dated 27.11.2013 Exs.R38 & R39 - Bills and Receipts Ex.R38(a) - Voucher Ex.R38(b) - Signature of Dr.K.S.Rajanndam Ex.R40 - Expenditure Statement Ex.R41- Cash voucher dated 5.3.2012 Ex.R41(a) - Signature of RW2 Ex.R42 -Letter dated 10.2.2002 Ex.R43 - Proposal of co-sponsorship (SACHIN KAUSHIK.R.N) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.