Karnataka High Court
The Sheshadripuram Educational ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
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.
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. 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
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
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
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
