IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.43205/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN DR. S. JAYASEELAN S/O LATE P. A. SEBASTIAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ST. PHILOMENA’S COLLEGE PRESENTLY ON DEPUTATION TO MAHARANI’S COLLEGE, MYSORE & R/AT NO.699, 17TH MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-570 039.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. NAGA PRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE) AND 1. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MAHARANI’S ARTS COLLEGE CAMPUS VINOBA ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
2. MYSORE DIOCESAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD) ST.JOSEPH’S COMPLEX, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. PRINCIPAL ST PHILOMENA’S COLLEGE, MYSORE BANNIMANTAP MYSORE-570 015.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M. S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.8.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND CHAIRMAN OF EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN EAT NO. 1/2017 VIDE ANNEX-R TO W.P. BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AS ALSO ORDER DATED 21.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX- L TO W.P. PASSED BY R-2 AS BEING VOID AB INITIO AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Physics, in the 3rd respondent-institution on 02.07.1990. By virtue of a complaint dated 22.11.2014, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the respondent-institution. A charge sheet was issued on 13.04.2015.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. Naga Prasanna appearing for the petitioner would submitted that the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings by the 3rd respondent-institution is vitiated on several grounds, but attack is mainly on the appointment of an enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 38(2) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 would provide that only such persons could be appointed as an enquiry officer, who have no dealings of whatever nature with the management or any member thereof or with any employee in the institution or elsewhere.
3. It is specifically contended by the petitioner that the enquiry officer who was appointed to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner herein was a student of the very same institution and has been handling the matters pertaining to the institution.
4. Sri. Sarathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institution would fairly concede that the respondent-institution would not contest the allegation made by the petitioner and the matter could be regulated back to the institution to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of evidence.
5. In that view of the matter, the report submitted by the enquiry officer at Annexure-H and order of penalty dated 21.02.2017, at Annexure-L are hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondent-institution may proceed with enquiry by appointing any other enquiry officer and the enquiry may proceed from the stage of adducing evidence.
6. Needless to observe that the respondent- institution is required to conduct the disciplinary enquiry proceedings in terms of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003.
SD/- JUDGE DL