IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.52338 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA DYAMAGONDA S/O SRI DEVAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS R/A HOSKOTE, NOW R/A POST B K NADA INDI TALUK, BIJAPUR.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI NITISH, FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF DDPI, BANGALORE RURAL, CENTRAL JUNIOR COLLEGE COMPOUND, OPP:CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.3874/2004 AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 6.12.2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 29.03.2004 AT ANNEXURE-A6.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.3874/2004.
2. The petitioner was terminated from service on 29.03.2004. Following the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the application calling in question the order of termination. However, we notice that the Tribunal, after long gap of 12 years passed the impugned order on 06.12.2016 dismissing the application on the ground of availability of alternative remedy since the statute provides for an appeal before the Designated Appellate Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd., and another /vs./ Principal Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 665. Our attention is drawn to paragraph No.3 of the judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, having entertained the writ petition, in which pleadings were also complete, ought to have decided the case on merits instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit.
4. On going through the writ papers, we find that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Government Junior Primary School, in the year 1999. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 06.11.2002. A show cause notice dated 22.11.2002 was issued and the petitioner caused a reply on 23.07.2003. The order of termination came to be issued on 29.03.2004 and the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2004 itself. However from the records we find that the petitioner has not made any efforts to get the matter listed and see that the matter is disposed of at the earliest, since it is a matter of survival of the petitioner and his family. The fact circumstances of the present case is very different from the facts in Durga Enterprises case (supra). We are not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE KLY/