1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.11695/2019 (S - RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION No.10729/2019 (S - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.32086/2019 (S - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.11695/2019 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
THE SHESHADRIPURAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
NO.27, NAGAPPA STREET,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HONOURARY SECRETARY,
DR.WOODY P.KRISHNA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
(COLLEGIATE EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. SRI SHASHIDHAR T .,
SON OF NAGAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.92, GROUND FLOOR,
3RD 'A' MAIN, 4TH 'A' CROSS, SOMESHWAR NAGAR,
GKVK POST, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 065.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R., AGA FOR R1;
SRI NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 IN REVIEW PETITION
NO.22/2017 CULMINATING IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED;
DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN REVISION PETITION
NO.22/2017 INSTITUTED BY THE R-2 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1
UNDER SECTIN 132 OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983, IS
ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
IN WRIT PETITION No.10729/2019 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
THE SHESHADRIPURAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST
NO.27, NAGAPPA STREET,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HONOURARY SECRETARY,
DR.WOODY P.KRISHNA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
3
(COLLEGIATE EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI SHASHIDHAR T.,
SON OF NAGAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.92, GROUND FLOOR,
3RD 'A' MAIN, 4TH 'A' CROSS,
SOMESHWAR NAGAR, GKVK POST,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 065.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R., AGA FOR R1;
SRI NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 IN REVIEW PETITION
NO.21/2017 CULMINATING IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED; DECLARE
THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN REVISION PETITION NO.21/2017
INSTITUTED BY THE R-2 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 UNDER SECTION
132 OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983, IS ONE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.32086/2019 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
SRI SHASHIDHAR T.,
S/O SRI NAGAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A # 92, GROUND FLOOR,
3RD 'A' MAIN, 4TH 'A' CROSS,
SOMESHWAR NAGAR, GKVK POST,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 065.
... PETITIONER
4
(BY SRI NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION-
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE SESHADRIPURAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
NO 27, NAGAPPA STREET,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R., AGA FOR R1;
SRI GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD.29.3.2019 ANNX-W, ISSUING AUTHORITY BY
PRINCIPAL SECONDARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND
ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION NO.22/2017 AS PRAYED AND
ALSO GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL PRAYER LIKE DENOVO.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.11695/2019 has called in question the order passed by the Reviewing Authority in a review petition filed by the second respondent-Employee whereby the Reviewing Authority has stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet issued against the petitioner.
2. W.P.No.10729/2019 also arises between the same parties against an order passed by the Reviewing authority dated 1.02.2019 directing the enquiry against the second respondent to be completed within one month. Both the review petitions arises out of a common incident of a complaint being registered against the petitioner.
3. W.P.No.32086/2019 is filed by the employee challenging continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him by an Enquiry Officer from the stage at which the earlier Enquiry Officer had left the proceedings.
6
4. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as the 'Management' and the 'Employee'.
5. All these petitions arises out of a complaint registered against the employee by female students who had been allegedly sexually harassed by the petitioner. On receipt of the said complaint the employee was placed under suspension on 22.2.2017 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry against the petitioner for the allegations of sexual harassment which had resulted in issuance of a charge sheet against him on 21.7.2017.
6. Challenging continuation of suspension, the Employee approached the Revisional Authority in Revision Petition No.21/2017 invoking Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Revisional Authority by its order dated 01.02.2019 directed the enquiry to be completed within one month from the date of the order which would be within 01.03.2019. This order is called in question by the Management in W.P.No.10729/2019. 7
7. The Employee again invoking Section 131 of the Education Act, 1983 filed a Revision Petition No.22/2017 challenging the very proceedings where all further proceedings are stayed by the Revisional Authority. This is challenged in W.P.No.11695/2019. Therefore, there are two orders passed by the same authority which contradicts each other. In one order, the Revisional Authority directs completion of enquiry within one month and in another order, stays all further proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet. The reason assigned for granting stay of further proceedings is that the employee had approached the Revisional Authority in Revision petition alleging that the Enquiry officer was an Advocate who represents the Management and the same was contrary to the Rules governing such proceedings in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vs. Delhi University & others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 549.
8. W.P.No.32086/2019 is filed by the employee challenging the action of the newly appointed Enquiry Officer who was appointed on 27.02.2019, in continuing the enquiry from where the earlier enquiry had left of and contended that a denovo enquiry 8 ought to have been held by the newly appointed Enquiry Officer. This Court has by an interim order stayed all further proceedings.
9. Heard Sri.Giridhar.S.V., learned counsel appearing for the Management, Smt.Sharadamba.A.R, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and Sri.Narajji Deepak, learned counsel appearing for Employee.
10. The facts are not in dispute. The allegation is one of sexual harassment by the petitioner to the female students of the institution. Though it is only an allegation and the veracity of the complaint is yet to be proved, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing reinstatement of the petitioner by the Revisional Authority on an allegation of this nature is unsustainable. Therefore, the order of suspension that the Management had passed against the petitioner shall continue to be in operation till the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings.
11. The allegation by the Employee in his petition is that the earlier Enquiry Officer did not have the authority to act as an 9 Enquiry Officer and it was in violation of the statute. The new Enquiry Officer had continued from where the earlier Enquiry Officer had left. Since the appointment of earlier Enquiry Officer is contrary to law, no proceedings conducted by the earlier Enquiry Officer can be taken into consideration. Therefore, the newly appointed Enquiry Officer shall conduct an enquiry denovo against the petitioner in terms of the charge sheet dated 21.7.2017 and conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) W.P.No.11695/2019 is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed in Revision Petition No.22/2017 by respondent No.1 is quashed.
(ii) W.P.No.10729/2019 is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed in Revision Petition No.21/2017 by respondent No.1 is quashed.
(iii) W.P.No.32086/2019 is allowed in part. The Enquiry Officer is directed to conduct a denovo enquiry and 10 complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(iv) The petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance during the subsistence of suspension.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ