Karnataka High Court
Shivaji B vs Smt. Reshma And Anr on 22 July, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
WA No. 200084 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 200075 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200084 OF 2022 (S-REG)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200075/2022
IN WA NO.200084 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. VIVEKAND EDUCATION SOCIETY
(BENGALURU) CAMPUS J.N
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, THANA
KUSHNOOR, TQ: KAMALNAGAR
Digitally signed
DIST: BIDAR, THROUGH ITS
by
BASALINGAPPA
GENERAL SECRETARY.
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 2. THE PRINCIPAL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU POLYTECHNIC
KARNATAKA
THANA KUSHNOOR, TQ: KAMALNAGAR,
DIST: BIDAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAJI B.
S/O. KRISHNAJI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER IN SELECTION GRADE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
WA No. 200084 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 200075 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN JAWARHARLAL NEHRU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
THANAKUSHNOOR, TQ: KAMALNAGAR,
DIST: BIDAR.
NOW R/O. H.NO.8-9-520
OPP. GURUDWARA GATE, DEVI COLONY,
BIDAR-585401.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGH EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 01.
3. THE DIRECTOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
TANTRIKA SHIKSHANA BHAVANA
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI P. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED
BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DISMISSING
W.P.NO.200952/2021(S-REG) AND FURTHER ALLOW THE SAID
W.P.NO.200952/2021(S-REG) AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CCC NO.200075/2022:
BETWEEN:
SHIVAJI B.,
S/O. KRISHNAJI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER IN SELECTION GRADE
(NOW DISMISSED)
IN JAWAHARLAL NEHRU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
THANA KUSNOOR, TQ: KAMAL NAGAR,
DIST: BIDAR.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
WA No. 200084 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 200075 of 2022
HC-KAR
NOW R/O. H.NO.8-9-520
OPP. GURUDWARA GATE,
DEVI COLONY, BIDAR-585401.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI P. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RESHMA
D/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL
GENERAL SECRETARY,
VIVEKANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, (BENGALURU)
CAMPUS J.N. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
THANA KUSHNOOR, TQ: KAMALNAGAR,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...ACCUSED NO.1
2. SRI. JAGANNATH K. SUTAR
PRINCIPAL,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
THANA KUSHNOOR,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...ACCUSED NO.2
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI D.P. AMBEDKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI - AGA FOR R3)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 & 12
OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AND
ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING
PUNISHING THEM IN SO FAR AS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
WA No. 200084 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 200075 of 2022
HC-KAR
PASSED IN W.P.NO.200952/2021 DATED 11.01.2022 WHICH IS
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED
FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM WITH IMPRISONMENT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PEITTION
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
14.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA)
The appellants, who were the petitioners in
W.P.No.200952/2021 have filed this intra Court appeal
challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition
challenging the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge and Education
Appellate Tribunal, Bidar ('Tribunal', for short) in EAT
No.1/2019 setting aside the dismissal of respondent No.1
and directing his reinstatement with back-wages,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
continuity of service and consequential benefits was
dismissed.
2. The respondent No.1 in this intra Court appeal
was the appellant (applicant) before the Tribunal and the
contesting respondent No.1 in W.P.No.200952/2021. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal are the
petitioners in W.P.No.200952/2021 and appellants in writ
appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.1, learned Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 in
the contempt petition.
4. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
5. The applicant has filed contempt petition
alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge and
seeking implementation of the reinstatement and back-
wages.
6. The applicant was appointed as a Lecturer by
respondent No.1 - Education Society and was serving in
respondent No.2 - Jawaharlal Nehru Polytechnic,
Kamalnagar, Dist. Bidar (for short, 'College'), his
appointment was duly approved by the Government
Departments (respondent Nos.3 and 4). The applicant
was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer on 27.05.2005
and as Selection Grade Lecturer on 30.10.2016.
Allegations of absenteeism were made against the
applicant for the period from 01.01.2018 to 10.02.2019.
A charge memo was issued, and disciplinary proceedings
were initiated. The enquiry officer concluded that the
charge against the applicant was proved. Consequently,
an order of dismissal from service was passed on
19.03.2019 by respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
7. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the applicant
filed an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
1983'), challenging the order of dismissal dated
19.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 -College,
acting on the instructions and directions of respondent
No.1 - Vivekananda Education Society (for short,
'Education Society').
8. Before the Tribunal, the respondents appeared
and filed objections contending that the dismissal was
legal and valid, having issued for proved misconduct. It
was further contended that, under Section 46(b) of the
Act, 1983, the Managing Committee has full authority to
take disciplinary action against the teachers and staff and
to pass suitable orders as per Section 92 of the Act, 1983.
Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the
Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing reinstatement of the
applicant with back-wages, continuity of service and all
consequential benefits with further direction to respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
Nos.1 and 2 to comply with the order of reinstatement
within four weeks from the date of the order. While doing
so, the Tribunal observed that, since the applicant's
appointment has been approved by the Competent
Authority, it was mandatory for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
obtain prior approval before passing the order of dismissal,
as per Rule 32 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Rules, 2003').
9. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's
service from the date of appointment i.e., from 1992 till
December, 2017 was unblemished, and therefore it could
not be presumed that the misconduct has occurred without
a strong justification. The Tribunal further observed that
in the notice issued to the applicant there was no
allegation that he was not at all coming to the college but
what was said is that he has not taken the classes from
01.01.2018 to 10.02.2019. Thus, the nature of charge
memo and the departmental enquiry findings did not align
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
casting doubt on the disciplinary action. Accordingly, the
Tribunal found that the order of dismissal needs to be set
aside.
10. The appellants preferred writ petition assailing
the order of Tribunal on various grounds more particularly
contending that Act of 1983 is not applicable, as they are
governed by the All India Council for Technical Education
Act, 1987 ('AICTE Act, 1987', for short). The learned
Single Judge upon appreciation of the contentions and
material on record held that Section 1(3) of Act, 1983
excludes the application of the Act to institutes governed
by AICTE Act, 1987. However, Technical Education is
defined under Section 2(37) of the Act, 1983, and the Act
applies to all institution except those specifically excluded
and held that in the instant case petitioner No.2 is a
private polytechnic college and therefore, is governed by
the Rules framed under the Karnataka Private Educational
Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, which are
saved by Section 146 of the Act, 1983. The learned Single
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
Judge further observed that the Rules, 2003 prescribes a
procedure for imposing major penalties, particularly in
Rule 38, including the dismissal from service and on the
other hand, the AICTE Act, 1987, primarily deals with
regulations of courses of study in the fields such as,
Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Ceramics,
Industrial Training, Mining or any other subject as the
State Government may notify. Hence, it was observed
that the AICTE Act, 1987 does not cover polytechnic
institutions under its disciplinary provisions and
accordingly held that the Act, 1983 is applicable to the
facts of the present case.
11. The learned Single Judge further noted that the
Tribunal was justified in arriving at its conclusion having
fully appreciated the entire documentary evidence. Further
observing that the charge of unauthorized absenteeism,
even if proved did not justify the extreme penalty of
dismissal and punishment was grossly disproportionate
and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
12. The appellants contend that the Act, 1983 does
not apply to their institution and assert that the institution
is governed by AICTE Act, 1987, which prescribed its own
framework for technical institution. It is also contended
that the dismissal was based on unauthorized absence
from 01.01.2018 to 10.02.2019 which was proved in
departmental enquiry. It is contended that the Tribunal's
discretion reinstatement with back-wages is highly
disproportionate and suffers from perversity warranting
interference by this Court.
13. Upon perusal of Section 1(3), Section 2(37) and
Section 146 of Act, 1983 and Rules 32 and 38 of Rules,
2003, we hold that the disciplinary matters concerning the
employees of the appellants' institution falls within the
scope of the Act, 1983. The learned Single Judge and the
Tribunal was justified in holding that Act, 1983 was
applicable. Rule 32 of Rules, 2003 mandates prior
approval from the competent authority before dismissing,
suspending or removing an employee from service and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
failure to comply with this rule, render the dismissal
procedurally invalid. The Tribunal carefully appreciated
the evidence and there is no perversity in its finding. The
learned Single Judge on appreciating the entire material
has rightly dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere
with the order passed by the Tribunal. For all the said
reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal, confirmed by
the learned Single Judge are legally sustainable and call
for no interference by this Court.
14. Supporting the order passed by the Tribunal,
confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended by
the learned Senior Counsel that despite the clear direction
of the Tribunal which attained finality upon confirmation by
this Court in the writ petition, the appellants have willfully
failed to reinstate the applicant, thereby committing gross
contempt. The non-compliance, it is asserted, is not
inadvertent but deliberate contumacious, warranting penal
consequences. Accordingly, the complainant sought
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
initiation of contempt proceedings against the
respondents.
15. In this context, Sri D.P.Ambedkar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
present contempt petition is not maintainable in view of
the statutory remedy available under the provisions of
Act, 1983 and he relied upon Section 96 (d) of the Act,
1983. It was contended that in light of the said provision
the complainant must approach Tribunal itself for
execution of the award which has statutory power under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, there exists an
alternative and efficacious remedy and the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court is not attracted in such cases.
16. Section 96(d) of the Act, 1983 reads as under:
"96. Tribunal- xxxx
(3) The Educational Appellate Tribunal-
(d) shall for the purpose of executing its
own orders have the same powers as
are vested in a Court executing a
decree of a Civil Court under the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Central Act 5 of 1908) as if such
orders were decrees of a Civil Court."
17. In view of the specific language of Section 96(d)
of the Act, 1983, the Education Appellate Tribunal is
vested with full powers to enforce its orders as though
they are decrees of a Civil Court. Therefore, the
complainant has a direct statutory remedy before the
Tribunal, and this remedy is adequate, efficacious and
specifically designed for enforcement of the orders passed
under the Act of 1983. Therefore, the contempt petition is
not maintainable and the complainant is at liberty to
approach the Tribunal under Section 96(d) of the Act,
1983 for execution of the award/order. No case is made
out for initiation of contempt proceedings, hence same is
dropped, and we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is hereby
dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4104-DB
HC-KAR
ii) The order dated 11.01.2022 in
Writ Petition No.200952/2021 stands
confirmed.
iii) The contempt proceedings are
hereby dropped with liberty to the
complainant to approach the
Tribunal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
