IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.800 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
N. MANJUNATHA SON OF NARASIMHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT GUNDATHURU VILLAGE, N.BELATHURU POST, ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL OFFICE NEAR OLD BRIDGE, HUNSUR TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 105.
REPRESENTED BY IT’S PRESIDENT M.R. NAGARAJASHETTY, SON OF LATE MAKKAM RAMASWAMYSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD BRIDGE, K.R. NAGAR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO ING VYSYA BANK, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
2. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT, M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL OLD BRIDGE ROAD HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
3. H.S. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF MAKKAM SURYANARAYANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SECRETARY M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL OLD BRIDGE ROAD HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
4. H.S.SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SON OF MAKKAM SURYANARAYANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS TRUSTEE M.R.N.V HIGH SCHOOL OLD BRIDGE ROAD HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
5. SUDESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS TRUSTEE, M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL, OLD BRIDGE ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
6. H. NAGENDRA GUPTA SON OF H.A. SUBBASHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS JANSI LAKSHMIBAI CROSS ROAD TRUSTEE M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL OLD BRIDGE ROAD HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
7. H.D. SUREGOWDA SON OF DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HEAD MASTER, M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL, OLD BRIDGE ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER HUNSUR TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No. 8) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION 55239/2017 [S-RES] DATED 19/1/2018 AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.55239 of 2017 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment dated 9.11.2017 is EAT No.2 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Mysuru (for short ‘the EAT’) and for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 8 to reinstate the petitioner to the post held by him and also to pay backwages from 01.07.2014 with other Government and pecuniary benefits. The petitioner states that he is a graduate in Bachelor of Education from Bangalore University and also has a degree of Master of Arts from Karnataka State Open University, Mysuru. He made an application to the post of Teacher/Lecturer in the respondent – M.R.N.V. High School. On considering the petitioner’s application, the respondents appointed him as Teacher/Lecturer on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and he reported to duty on 01.06.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.06.2014 he was paid salary for the months of April and May 2014 and accordingly on receiving the salary he wrote letter stating that he has received salary for the months of April and May 2014 and there is no dues. Thereafter, the petitioner was orally asked not to come to work and he alleges oral termination. He states that he made representation on 12.12.2014 seeking certain documents. The petitioner got issued legal notice on 24.03.2015 regarding his termination and seeking to pay the arrears of salary. The petitioner thereafter filed petition before the District Court and Educational Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.2 of 2015. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues :-
“1. Whether the appellant proves that the respondents denied him work and not permitted him to sign in the Attendance Register ?
2. Whether the appellant proves that the respondents terminated him from the post of Teacher w.e.f. 01.07.2014 ?
3. Whether the respondents prove that the appellant himself did not turn up for duty since 02.04.2014 and left the job ?
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for?
5. What Order or decree?”
Before the EAT the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and examined other three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 and got marked 55 documents as Exs.P1 to P.55. The respondents got examined RW.1 to 3 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.9.
3. The Tribunal on examination of the material on record both oral and documentary held issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the negative and issue No.3 partly in affirmative. The Tribunal held that there is no termination and it is the petitioner, who voluntarily left the job by receiving two months salary. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge on examination of the material on record also was of the view, that the petitioner voluntarily left the job from the respondents – Management. Therefore, the petitioner is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 8th respondent. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is the result of non consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge failed to properly look into Ex.R3 based on which both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has voluntarily left the job. It is contended that it is a clear case of removal of the petitioner from service without affording any opportunity. The learned Single Judge failed to notice that the respondents had failed to produce any of the complaint made by the students or parents. Hence prays for allowing the appeal.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the learned EAT, we are of the view, that there is no error or perversity in both the orders. The petitioner, who joined duty as Teacher/Lecturer on 01.06.2011 faced several complaints as stated by him in the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was orally instructed not to come to duty, which amounts to oral termination. The management successfully prevented the petitioner from discharging his duties from 1.7.2014. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined other three witness as PWs.2 to 4 in support of his case. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted documents Exs.R.1 to R.3. R.3 is the letter dated 30.06.2014 which is produced as Annexure-R to the writ petition, wherein he has stated that he received the salary for the months of April and May 2014 and stated that there is no arrears of pay. Thereafter he has not attended the school. If he was orally instructed not to attend the duties, he should have taken immediate action against the respondents – Management. He kept quiet nearly for an year without making any representation to the respondents – Management. Only in the month of March 2015 he got issued a legal notice to the respondents – Institution. Thereafter, he has taken his own time to file appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, before the EAT. All these circumstances, would indicate that the ground taken by the petitioner regarding termination is an after thought. Under Ex.R.3 the petitioner received salary for two months and voluntarily left the job. If he were to be only terminated he should have immediately made a representation or filed appeal before the EAT, which he has not chosen to do. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record both oral and documentary noted that there were several complaints against the petitioner and also an incident of a girl jumping from the second floor due to harassment of the petitioner. The Tribunal on analysing Ex.R.3 in proper perspective has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no termination from the respondents – Management, but the petitioner has voluntarily left the job. The learned Single Judge also looking into Ex.R.3 which is produced as Annexure R to the writ petition has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has voluntarily left the job. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms