[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner For vs Smt. Nazhath Jabeen on 12 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
WA No. 1763 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1763 OF 2024 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location: 1. SMT. NAZHATH JABEEN
HIGH W/O SRI MOHAMMED ZAFRULLA KHAN
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
HASANATH COLLEGE
NO.5, 8/2, BYRAWESHWARA LAYOUT
HENNURBANDE, KALYANA NAGAR
BANGALORE
R/AT NO. 229, 4TH A CROSS,
KALYAN NAGAR, 3RD BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560084.
2. THE PRESIDENT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
WA No. 1763 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY
NO.43, DISKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560042.
3. THE HON SECRETARY
THE HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY
NO.43, DISKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP No-9521/2024.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed
impugning the judgment and order dated 21.12.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9521/2014
(S-DIS) filed by respondent No.1 herein.
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner faced the disciplinary proceedings
conducted by the Management of Hasanath College, which
is run by the Hasanath Education Society. The petitioner
was working as a Principal in the said College. After
conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Management
passed the punishment order imposing the major penalty
of dismissal from service on 29.05.2005.
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 29.05.2005,
dismissing the petitioner from service, the petitioner filed
an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The
Tribunal however, vide order dated 08.11.2013 passed in
MA(EAT) No. 13/2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
5. The State Authorities in their statement of objection
have categorically stated in paragraph Nos.30 to 35 as
under :-
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
"30. It is submitted that, perusal of para-47 of the EAT
judgment clearly goes to show that the petitioner has not
participated in the enquiry) proceedings. It is also clear
on perusal of the charge-sheet, enquiry report etc. that
the college authorities nowhere have mentioned as to
under which rule they have proceeded / conducted
enquiry against the petitioner because if they had
proceeded against the petitioner as per Karnataka Private
Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules,
1978 it is illegal/ incorrect because the said rules were
framed in pursuance to Karnataka Private Educational
Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 which was
repealed as per Section 146(1) of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 and when the Act, 1975 has been
repealed, the Rules 1978 is not force after coming into
force of Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
31. It is submitted that, it was mandatory on the part of
the college authorities to proceed/enquire against the
petitioner only as per Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, but none of the
records produced along the petition proves the point that
they have conducted enquiry as per 2003 rules.
32. It is submitted that the statement made by the
petitioner In para-26 to 39 all pertain to the decision
rendered by the EAT which has upheld the dismissal of
the Petitioner, but the petitioner nowhere state that the
enquiry was held as per which rule.
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
Even If it is presumed that the college authorities have
conducted enquiry as per the provisions contained in
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education)
Rules 2003, then as per 2nd proviso of rule 32 of
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education)
Rules 2003 they should have obtained prior permission
and only thereafter they should have passed the dismissal
order dated 29.05.2005.
33. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 and 4 herein
have not taken approval from the competent authority
either prior to suspending the Petitioner or deciding to
dismiss her, thus whatever enquiry they have conducted
as also the order of the Tribunal impugned herein are
invalid and are liable to be quashed as per the ratio of the
judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Sri B K
Gopalakrishna's case cited supra.
34. It is submitted that, on the allegation that he was un-
authorizedly absent for duties, the college authorities had
Imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement as per
order dated 08.07.2004 without talking prior approval as
per 2nd provision of the Rules, 2003. Sri Gopalakrishna
challenged penalty of compulsory retirement before the
jurisdictional CAT which on 04.08.2006 upheld penalty
order dated 08.07.2004. However, when the matter was
taken up before this Hon'ble Court in WP No.14280/2006,
this Hon'ble Court on 31.07.2009 quashed both the
penalty order dated 08.07.2004 as well as order passed
by the EAT on 04.08.2006. Thereafter, the college
authorities took up the matter before the Division Bench
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
in Writ Appeal No.3669/2009 which came to be
DISMISSED on 07.06.2013. Copies of the orders dated
31.07.2009 and 07.06.2013 is produced as ANNEXURE-R
1 AND R2.
35. It is submitted that, perusal of the above clearly goes
to prove that this Hon'ble Court has upheld the 2"^
proviso of Rule 32 of 2003 rules. Thus the college
authorities were bonnet to comply 2o" proviso of 2003
rules."
6. Thus, the State Government in unequivocal term has
taken a stand that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
Management against the petitioner, was not in accordance
with the relevant rules.
7. If this is the stand of the Government Authorities,
then the disciplinary inquiry and punishment got vitiated
and the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in
service.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears
that the management and the petitioner had entered into
a compromise. The learned Single Judge, has recorded
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
the terms of compromise in the impugned judgment
which would read as under:-
"1. The Petitioner had challenged the Order of dismissal
dated 2905.2055 issued by the 4th Respondent before the
Educational Appellate Tribunal by filing MA(EAT)
No.13/2005. However, the Appeal preferred by her was
dismissed vide Judgment dated 08.11.2013.
2.The Petitioner being aggrieved has preferred the above
writ petition and sought for quashing of the same.
3. It is submitted that during the hearing of the above
petition, the Respondents No.3 and 4 and the Petitioner
have decided to prefer the present Joint Memo on the
following terms.
(i) The Petitioner has decided to bring an end to this
litigation and has no claim of any sort from respondent
M/s Hasanath Education Society and voluntarily decided
to present this joint memo.
(ii) The Petitioner will be entitled to seek for payment of
pension from 01.10.2012 from the Education Department
and the Government and she will be paid the same by the
Department by considering the notional fixation of pay as
on 30.09.2012, based on the norms of the UGC.
(iii) The Management will cooperate for submission and
forwarding of the proposal for payment of pension of the
Petitioner and will request the Department for sanction of
the pension and other benefits payable to the Petitioner
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
treating the services of the Petitioner from her initial date
of appointment till 30.09.2012, the actual date of
superannuation without reference to the order of
dismissal passed or disciplinary proceedings initiated by
the management against the Petitioner. Both the Order of
Dismissal from service and that of the Hon'ble EAT hence
require to be set aside."
9. By looking at the terms of memo, it is evident that
the petitioner has given up his claim for back wages from
the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation.
10. Sri M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned AGA appearing for the
appellants has vehemently submitted that the State
Government was not party to the joint memo and
therefore, the writ petition ought not to have been
disposed off in terms of the joint memo filed by the
Management and the petitioner.
11. Once the State Government has taken a categorical
stand that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance
with the relevant rules, we are of the opinion, the State
Government should not have any objection with the terms
of settlement as accepted, in the impugned order dated
NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB
HC-KAR
21.12.2023. We therefore, find no merit in this appeal,
which is why it is rejected.
12. In view of rejection of the appeal, pending interim
applications if any, stand rejected.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NG
CT: SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
