[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru vs Sri R Shivakumara Swamy on 31 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.812 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.490 OF 2023
IN WA NO 812 OF 2023:
BETWEEN
SREE TARALABALU JAGADGURU
EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
SIRIGERE-577 541.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.M. SAI APABHARANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARENDRA H.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. R. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
S/O REVANA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
KANNADA LANGUAGE TEACHER
SREE RUDRESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL
GOPPENAHALLI
2
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 215
2 . THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY)
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 23.01.2023 IN WRIT PETITION No.23123/2022 (S-RES)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS IT
DIRECTS THE APPELLANT TO PAY ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
IN CCC NO 490 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
R. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
S/O REVANA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
KANNADA LANGUAGE TEACHER
SREE RUDRESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL
3
GOPPENAHALLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 215
CELL: 8970948221
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. SRI VAMADEVAPPA H.V.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SREE TARALABAALU JAGATGURU
EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 541
2 . SRI. KRISHNOJI S. KARI CHANNAVAR
DIRECTOR (SECONDARY)
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY
K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
...ACCUSED
3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY
4
6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE FOR A1;
A2 SERVED;
SMT. MAMATHA SHEETY, AGA FOR PROFORMA R3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 14 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THEIR DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE AND DISHONEST AND WILL FULL DEFIANCE OF
THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 (ANNE-A) PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION No.23123/2022 (S-RES) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
IN THE INTEREST OF LAW, JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
5
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The Writ Appeal No.812/2022 is preferred against the
Order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No.23123/2022 (S-RES). The Contempt of
Court Case No.490/2023 is filed alleging disobedience of the
same Order.
2. We have heard Smt. K.M. Sai Apabharana,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the Writ
Appeal, Shri. Siddaiah L, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 in the Writ Appeal and for the complainant
in the Contempt of Court Case, Shri. Ashok G.V, learned
counsel appearing for accused No.1 in the Contempt of
Court Case and Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 in the
Writ Appeal and for proforma respondent No.3 in the
Contempt of Court Case.
3. Respondent No.1 was a Teacher in the aided
school run by the appellant. It was alleged that he had
forcibly taken a Service Register from the Headmaster's
chambers and burnt it in the presence of school children.
The Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the Teacher
and a letter dated 02.01.2014 was sent to the Deputy
Director, Department of Public Instructions ('DDPI' for short)
by the appellant seeking the appointment of a nominee to
conduct the enquiry. The DDPI vide letter dated 04.12.2014
appointed a Sole Enquiry Officer. An enquiry was conducted
and respondent No.1 was found guilty of the charges.
4. Following a Show-Cause Notice issued on
13.04.2019, an order dated 29.07.2021 was passed
enforcing the punishment of compulsory retirement on
respondent No.1. Though, an appeal was filed before the
Appellate Tribunal as Appeal No.3/2022, the same was
dismissed by Order dated 23.09.2022.
5. A writ petition was filed challenging the Order
dated 29.07.2021 as well as the Order of the Appellate
Tribunal dated 23.09.2022. The learned Single Judge found
that the proceedings in enquiry were clearly faulty inasmuch
as Rule 21 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of
Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary
Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 ('1999 Rules' for short)
provided for the constitution of a committee to conduct an
enquiry against a Teacher of an Educational Institution. In
that view of the matter, the Order of compulsory retirement
imposed against the petitioner as well as the Order
dismissing the appeal were found to be bad in law. The
orders were therefore set aside and respondent No.1 was
directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential
benefits permissible in accordance with law, reserving liberty
to initiate the proceedings against him in proper form.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant was not put on notice and heard
before the Order was passed by the learned Single Judge.
Further, it is contended that the allegations raised against
respondent No.1 are grave in nature and therefore, the
direction for payment of consequential benefits was
unjustified. It is further submitted that no back wages are
payable to respondent No.1 since he had not worked during
the relevant time. It is further contended that further
proceedings have thereafter been initiated against
respondent No.1 and he has been proceeded against in
accordance with law as well.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
• Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and
others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324;
• Mulin Sharma v. State of Assam and others
reported in (2016) 14 SCC 208;
• R. Shekar v. The Divisional Controller
passed in W.A.No.131/2022 dated
15.02.2022;
• U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and
Others v. Udai Narain Pandey, reported in
MANU/SC/2321/2005;
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others
v. S.C. Sharma, reported in
MANU/SC/0037/2005, and
• Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar
Rai and Others, reported in
MANU/SC/0349/2005.
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 would, on the other hand, submit that Rule 21 of the
1999 Rules, specifically provides for the conduct of an
enquiry by an enquiry committee. It was an admitted case
that there was no enquiry committee constituted in the
instant case. Moreover, respondent No.1 had not been
served with any Articles of Charges and the enquiry was not
conducted as provided in the 1999 Rules. It is therefore
contended that since the Order of Penalty as well as the
appellate Order stood quashed, respondent No.1 is entitled
to reinstatement with all consequential benefits including
back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We have also heard the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. It is an
admitted fact that the procedure prescribed under the 1999
Rules had not been followed before inflicting the punishment
on respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied on several judgments to contend that
the grant of back wages on reinstatement is not automatic.
However, we notice that, the instant case is one where the
enquiry was conducted by an incompetent officer and
without following the procedure prescribed under the 1999
Rules which are admittedly applicable. In such a case, we
have no hesitation to hold that since the enquiry itself was
by an incompetent authority, the punishment imposed is
non est in law and the consequence of quashing of the said
punishment would be a reinstatement with consequential
benefits. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge had
specifically accepted the finding that the Authority which
held the enquiry was not competent under the Rules to do
so. In this appeal also, the appellant does not have any
contention that the enquiry conducted against respondent
No.1 herein was a properly authorized enquiry.
10. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that there is no merit in the contention that back
wages would not be payable since respondent No.1 did not
work during the relevant time. Since the enquiry itself was
found to be bad in law, the contention that Non-Employment
Certificate has to be produced by respondent No.1 to claim
back wages is also completely untenable. However, we
notice that the Management was not primarily responsible
for the error in appointing the nominee of the Department
as Enquiry Officer instead of a Committee as provided under
the Rules. Since the appellant is an Aided Institution and
the error in conduct of the enquiry was not fully attributable
to the appellant, it would be for the Department to make
good any claims for salary or allowances payable to
respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
11. In the result:-
(i) The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The
amount due to respondent No.1 as
benefits consequent on reinstatement
shall be calculated and paid within two
months from today.
(ii) The appellant shall take necessary
steps to forward the bills for payment
of the amount to the concerned
Educational Authorities, who shall
take appropriate steps to see that the
amount is calculated and disbursed.
(iii) The Contempt of Court Case is closed
with liberty to reopen, if the amount
is not paid as directed above.
All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand
disposed of in both the matters.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
