Karnataka High Court
Hebbalappa vs G. Nagarathna And Anr on 24 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB
CCC No. 200196 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200196 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. HEBBALAPPA
S/O HAVALAPPA HIREMANI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O: RACHAYYA NAGAR,
POST: SOMAPUR,
TQ: NARAGUND,
DIST: GADAG - 582 207.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ 1. SMT. G. NAGARATHNA
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SECRETARY SHRI. NARASIMHASWAMY
VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD.),
GODEKERE,
TQ. CHIKKANAYANA HALLI,
DIST: TUMKUR - 571 604.
2. SMT. SINDHU B. RUPESH
THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...ACCUSED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB
CCC No. 200196 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI. A.M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R3;
V/O DATED: 20.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED
FOR THE PRESENT)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, R/W
ARTICLE 215 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO
PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE
ORDER DATED 25-05-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.84740/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
Contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated,
alleging disobedience and non-compliance of the order
dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.84740/2010.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB
HC-KAR
2. The above writ petition was filed praying to
issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge
at Raichur in EAT No.02/2004 dated 25.08.2009.
3. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ
petition and quashed the judgment and award passed by
the Principal District Judge at Raichur in EAT No.02/2004
dated 25.08.2009 with the following directions:
"12.3. Respondents are directed to appoint a fresh
enquiry officer in terms of Rules of 2003. The
enquiry officer shall comply with all the
requirements of Rules of 2003 and the Act of
1983 in conduct and completion of the enquiry
proceedings.
12.4. The enquiry not being conducted in a proper
and required manner, the petitioner would be
entitled to subsistence wages from the date of
dismissal till the date of retirement."
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 would submit that insofar as the direction issued to
appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer in terms of Rules, 2003 and
to conduct the enquiry, respondent No.1 has appointed a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB
HC-KAR
fresh Enquiry Officer and the enquiry is in progress and
therefore, the said direction has been complied.
5. He contended that insofar as the direction
issued regarding entitlement of subsistence wages from
the date of dismissal till the date of retirement, it is not
clarified in the order, as to who has to pay the said
subsistence wages. He further contended that the
subsistence wages have to be paid by the
Government/respondent No.2 and unless the said question
is decided, there is no contempt as such, at this stage.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant on the
other hand would contend that, since the enquiry was not
conducted in a proper and required manner, it is
respondent No.1 who has to pay the subsistence wages as
directed by the learned Single Judge and having not paid,
he has violated the said order.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has not
disputed that, the enquiry has been now commenced.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3331-DB
HC-KAR
Insofar as the directions issued to pay the subsistence
wages, there is no specific order as to who has to pay the
wages. In this regard, the complainant is required to seek
necessary clarification. Unless, it is clarified and specific
order is passed or the matter is decided in the appeal, it
cannot be said that either respondent No.1 or respondent
No.2 has committed contempt of the order passed in the
writ petition. Therefore, reserving liberty to the
complainant to seek clarification with regard to the said
direction issued, we drop the contempt proceedings for the
present, petition is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
TMP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.1
CT:NI
