Karnataka High Court
Arunkumar H.S vs Dr. Vijaykumar Kalmankar And Ors on 13 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
CCC No. 200078 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200078 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ARUNKUMAR H.S.
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: EX-PRINCIPAL OF PROF. P S
CHOUDHARY INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
R/O. H.NO.7-110/30-A, NEAR ESHWAR TEMPLE,
NEHRU GUNJ, KALABURAGI - 585104.
CELL NO.9886623882
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. K M GHATE, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 1. THE PRL. SECRETARY
MATHAPATI EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KAUSHALYA BHAVANA, DAIRY CIRCLE,
KARNATAKA BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020.
2. DR. VIJAYKUMAR KALMANKAR
PRESIDENT/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
ADARSH EDUCATION TRUST,
SBH COLONY, NEHRU GUNJ,
KALABURAGI - 585104.
3. MR JEETENDRA BHATT
INCHARGE PRINCIPAL PROF. CHOUDHARY,
ITI COLLEGE, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, ALAND ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585104.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
CCC No. 200078 of 2024
4. MR RAVINDRA BALLI
THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TRADING)
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
DIVISION OFFICE MSK MILL ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585102.
5. DR RAGAPRIYA, IAS
THE COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
KOUSHALY BHAVAN,
DIARY CIRLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGLAURU-580020.
6. THE PRL. SECRETARY
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
KAUSHALYA BHAVANA,
DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020.
...ACCUSEDS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 & R6)
THIS CCC IS FILED U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT
OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT
AND ISSUE NOTICE CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WHY
THEY SHOULD NOT BE DEALT WITH UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACT 1971, HAVING NOT COMPLIED THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.200136/2022 DATED: 23-05-
2023 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ACCORDINGLY PUNISH THE
RESPONDENTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
CCC No. 200078 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
1. Learned Senior counsel Sri Subramanya Jois
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits
that consequent to the writ petition being disposed of at
the hands of the learned Single Judge on 23.05.2023 with
certain directions to respondent Nos.2 & 3, more
particularly for reinstatement of the petitioner; for
payment of subsistent allowance and payment of 50%
backwages, nevertheless, liberty was also reserved to the
respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary action against the
appellant. These respondents preferred an intra Court
appeal in WA.No.200091/2023, wherein interim order of
stay was passed on 14.07.2023, insofar as payment of
backwages are concerned. Permission was also granted to
the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings denova
at the hands of an Officer who has not presided over the
previous proceedings and that the Officer shall preferably
be a retired District Judge. Directions were also issued to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
the complainant herein to participate in the disciplinary
proceedings.
2. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated
and a report was submitted by the enquiry Officer in
sealed cover. The sealed cover containing the report was
also placed before this Court in the writ appeal
proceedings. Consequently, by order dated 12.02.2024
the writ appeal was disposed of clearly stating that the
Court upon opening the sealed cover and on cursory
perusal of the report, has returned the same to learned
counsel for the Management. Submission was also made
on behalf of the complainant herein that the complainant
cannot oppose the leave to withdraw the writ appeals, but
it was submitted that this Court must direct the
Management to pay subsistence allowance. Accordingly,
the writ appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the
Management while clearly stating that this Court cannot
issue such directions to the Management to pay any
allowance beyond what was directed by the writ Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
3. Learned Senior counsel submits that no doubt the
Court has observed that the disposal of the writ appeals
cannot prejudice the writ petitioner's rights either in the
circumstances emphasized by the learned counsel or
otherwise. Learned Senior counsel submits that in Para-6
of the order passed by this Court, the submissions made
by the learned Senior counsel has clearly been recorded
that the obligation to pay backwages in terms of the
orders passed by the writ Court is only, if the disciplinary
proceedings were not initiated, but with the leave of the
Court, disciplinary proceedings were initiated afresh and
therefore, on consideration of the fresh enquiry report,
depending on the outcome of the decision that could be
taken by the Management, the writ petitioner was given
the liberty to work out his remedies. The learned Senior
counsel would therefore submit that, the complainant
herein never insisted on reinstatement throughout the
proceedings before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
The complainant has accepted the directions issued by the
Co-ordinate Bench, participated in the enquiry and now,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
after consideration of the report when fresh orders of
dismissal have been passed, the question of
reinstatement, at this stage, would not arise. It is
submitted that subsistence allowance has been paid to the
complainant.
4. Per Contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel
for the complainant that there was a direction issued by
the learned Single Judge directing the respondent -
Management to reinstate the writ petitioner forthwith.
That order has not been complied.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard
to the fact that the complainant herein did not insist on
reinstatement during the proceedings of the writ appeal
and on the other hand participated in the fresh enquiry
and now that there is an order of dismissal, this Court, in
the contempt jurisdiction, cannot decide as to whether the
Co-ordinate Bench said anything about the instatement of
the writ petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge. Further, having regard to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another Vs. Tarak Nath
Ganguly and Others (2002) 5 SCC 352 wherein it was
held that 'If the judgment or order does not contain any
specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any
ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be
better to direct the parties to approach the court which
disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead
of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon
itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a
manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment
or order,' we are of the considered opinion that the
complainant may seek clarification on the aspect as to
whether the Co-ordinate Bench intended to say anything
insofar as the reinstatement of the complainant is
concerned, having regard to the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge.
6. With these observations, the contempt petition is
disposed of while reserving liberty to the complainant to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8395-DB
revive the contempt petition if clarification is issued by the
Co-ordinate Bench that it intended to grant liberty to the
writ petitioner insofar as the question of reinstatement is
concerned.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
CT: PS
