IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.51737 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI G.S.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SANNA VEERAIAH AGE:51 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE) SAHAYDRI SCIENCE COLLEGE SAHAYADRI, KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY SHIVAMOGGA (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE CHANCELLOR, KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY GNANA SAHYADRI SHANKARGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA-577 451.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GNANA SAHAYDRI SHANKARGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA-577 451. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 3. THE REGISTRAR, KUVEMPUT UNIVERSITY GNANA SAHAYDRI SHANKARGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA-577 451.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RCORDSS RELATING TO APPEAL ON THE FILE OF R-
1 DATED 05.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY R-2 DATED 20.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE- J AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned order dated 20.01.2018, a copy where at Annexure-N, whereby he is dismissed from service by way of penalty levied by respondent No.2-Vice Chancellor; appeal against the said order having failed, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Learned panel counsel for the answering respondent having entered caveat in the writ petition, opposes the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, relief needs to be granted to the petitioner as under, because the penalty of the kind could not have been imposed by the Vice Chancellor who is not the competent authority under Statute 6 of Mysore University Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Statue, 1983, the competent authority being the appointing authority in terms of clause 3 which is admittedly the Syndicate of the University.
4. Statute 5 clause (1) prescribes the penalties that may be levied on an employee of the University on charge being proved. Penalty of removal and dismissal are at Item Nos. (ix) & (x) respectively.
Statute 6 clause (3) reads as under:
“Penalties specified in items (iv) and (vi) to (x) of Clause (1) of Statute 5 may be imposed only by the appointing authority.”
Therefore, there is force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders would not have been made by the 2nd respondent-Vice Chancellor, the Syndicate of the University being the appointing authority and therefore, being the competent authority to punish.
5. There is also force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the stage of issuance of second show cause notice, the disciplinary proceedings should resume their movement.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned orders are quashed; matter is remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of second show cause notice, in accordance with law.
Till the matter is re-considered, the parties shall maintain status quo as on this date.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE HR