Karnataka High Court
Block Education Officer vs Sri Ravindra Jokanahalli on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
WP No. 10715 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10715 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 01.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMN.)
Digitally signed AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
by NANDINI D
Location: High DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Court of SHIVAMOGGA - 01.
Karnataka
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA.)
AND:
SRI RAVINDRA JOKANAHALLI
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKED AS ASSISTANT
HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
WP No. 10715 of 2024
JOKANAHALLI, KADASURU,
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE,
R/AT HOSPETE BADAVANE,
SANJAYANAGAR, CHURCH ROAD,
HALE SORABA, SORABA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADV. FOR C/R-1.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 02.11.2023 IN A.No-2591/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
KAT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a. Call for the records in Application
No.2591/2023 on the file of the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru as per Annexure-A;
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
setting aside the impugned order
dated 02.11.2023 in Application
No.2591/2023, on the file of the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru, as per Annexure-A;
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate
appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for contesting private respondent.
3. It is submitted that the respondent was
appointed as Assistant Higher Primary School Teacher
under Category-III B (Physically Handicapped). It is
submitted that the respondent had produced Disability
Certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer at
Government Hospital, Davangere showing disability as
40% to 65%. Thereafter, one R. Mohan had filed
complaint against twelve Assistant Higher Primary School
Teachers stating that they were got selected by producing
false medical Disability Certificates. Accordingly,
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
investigation was conducted and report was generated
wherein it was found that some of the teachers had
obtained employment by submitting false medical
Disability Certificates. Thereafter, the Director of Primary
Education had directed the third petitioner to re-examine
the teachers appointed under Category-IIIB (Physically
Handicapped) and to verify the genuineness of the medical
report and also to take action in accordance with law. As
far as private respondent herein is concerned, he was
examined at the Mc.Gann Teaching District Hospital,
Shivamogga and a Certificate was generated showing that
he had nerve disability which was assessed at 36.91%.
On the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued,
disciplinary inquiry was conducted pursuant to which he
was dismissed from service.
4. The private respondent filed application
No.2591/2023 before the KSAT and by impugned order
dated 02.11.2023, the Tribunal found that in the absence
of any fault having been committed by the private
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
respondent, the order of dismissal was unjustified and
accordingly, the respondents therein were directed to
reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits
including the financial benefits to which he was entitled to.
The State is before us challenging the said order.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for
the petitioners submits that the private respondent would
have been entitled for appointment under the Physically
Handicapped quota, only if he had benchmark disability of
40% or above and it was on the basis of the Certificate
issued to the effect that he had disability ranging from
40% to 65% that he had been appointed. It is submitted
that on re-examination by the competent authority as
directed by the third petitioner, it was found that the
private respondent had disability of only 36.91%. It is
therefore contended that the private respondent was not
entitled for appointment under Physically Handicapped
quota and therefore, the order of dismissal was perfectly
legal and valid.
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
6. Learned counsel for the private respondent on
the other hand, contends that there is absolutely no
allegation any fraud having been committed by the private
respondent. It is contended that the Certificate which was
produced at the time of employment by the private
respondent was one issued by the Competent Authority.
It is submitted that the said Certificate still stands
unquestioned. It is contended that the Certificate of
Disability issued could be questioned only in terms of the
provisions of Act as contemplated under Section 59 of the
Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. Unless and
until the Certificate issued is set aside in appeal as
provided in Section 59 of the said Act, the same would
stand. It is contended that the degree of disability
assessed may change due to the subjective nature of
assessment by different authorities. It is also possible
that there is change in the degree of disability due to
efflux of time as well. In view of the fact that re-
examination also shows the disability of the same nature
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
as certified earlier to the extent of 36.91%, that by itself,
will not give rise to any conclusion that the appointment of
the private respondent was illegal.
7. It is submitted that the private respondent had
also relied on the Disability Certificate issued by the
competent officer for obtaining employment and that he
cannot, under any circumstances, be found fault with even
if the first assessment was erroneous in any manner which
is also a disputed fact.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the Tribunal had specifically referred to the
provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification,
Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, as also, to the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal
found that the charge No.1, i.e. the charge that the
private respondent had fraudulently obtained the Disability
Certificate from the competent authority for obtaining
employment on the basis of the same has been found not
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
proved in the enquiry. The charges proved, are charges
No.2 and 3. The Enquiry Officer also accepted the findings
on the basis of the evidence tendered by the examining
doctor that the private respondent had a disability of
36.91%. It is on the combined reading of all these
aspects that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
the penalty of dismissal imposed on the private
respondent was completely unjustified.
9. Having considered the contentions advanced
and in view of the fact that the allegation that the private
respondent played fraud or that the initial Disability
Certificate had been fraudulently obtained having found
against, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived
by the Tribunal that the punishment of dismissal was
unjustified is an acceptable one.
10. In the above facts and circumstances and in
view of the fact that the initial Disability Certificate issued
to the petitioner by an authorised medical officer under
the 2016 Act not having been found to be fraudulent, we
NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB
are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal does not
require interference. The writ petition therefore fails and
dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SSD
