Dismissed

Sri Durga Prasad v. Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2020CCC/17/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a civil contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of termination and reinstatement orders. The court held that the termination order itself did not breach the earlier stay order and dismissed the petition while keeping the challenge to the termination open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; remedy to challenge the order of termination kept open.

Sri Durga Prasad Vs Reverend Prasanna Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI CCC NO. 17/2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI DURGA PRASAD S/O SRI BABU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HINDI TEACHER CATHEDRAL COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE & HIGH SCHOOL (UNDER TERMINATION AND RESTORED BY ORDER OF COURT) R/AT NO.59, II CROSS, II MAIN VICTORIA LAYOUT BENGALURU–560 047

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

REVEREND PRASANNA KUMAR SAMUEL CHAIRMAN

¶14

CATHEDRAL COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE & HIGH SCHOOL NO.63, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560 025

¶15

SMT. CHRISTINE GLORY SHANTHI PRINCIPAL

¶16

CATHEDRAL COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY

¶17

¶18

COLLEGE & HIGH SCHOOL NO.63, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560 025

¶19

…ACCUSED

¶20

(BY SRI B M ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 & A-2)

¶21

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDERS DATED 30.08.2016 IN MA (EAT) NO.4/2015 BY REINSTATING THE COMPLAINANT ON 15.10.2019 AND THEREAFTER ON THE VERY SAME DAY I.E., 15.10.2019 HAVING TERMINATED THE SERVICES OF THE COMPLAINANT.

¶22

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -

¶25

complainant.

¶26

The complainant is alleging breach of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 30^th August 2016 passed by the learned 42^nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in an appeal filed by the complainant under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. By the said order, the learned Judge proceeded to set aside the order of termination of the complainant and a direction was issued to the

¶27

¶28

respondents to reinstate the complainant in his original post with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including back wages.

¶29

It is disclosed in the petition that in view of nonimplementation of the said order by the respondents, the complainant filed an execution petition in which warrant of attachment was issued. The grievance made in the petition is that though on 15^th October 2019, the complainant was given an order of reinstatement, at the same time, an order of terminating his employment was issued to him.

¶30

When we made a query to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant whether the complainant was reinstated and whether back wages have been paid to him, she answered in the affirmative. However, her submission is that the order of the Appellate Authority is set at naught by the respondents by terminating the employment of the complainant on the very day on which he was reinstated. Her submission is that the order of termination is patently illegal and the same has been passed without holding an inquiry.

¶31

¶32

We have considered the submissions. A case of

¶33

commission of civil contempt is made out when there is a willful breach of the order of Court or there is a disobedience of the undertaking given to the Court. In this case, the order dated 30^th August 2016 was implemented by the respondents by reinstating the complainant and by granting him back wages. Even assuming that the order of termination dated 15^th October 2019 is completely illegal as contended by the complainant, the act of issuing the order did not constitute a breach of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30^th August 2016. It is for the complainant to adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the order of termination of 15^th October 2019. Hence, no case is made out for initiating action for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. However, the remedy of the complainant to challenge the order of termination is expressly kept open. This order shall not be construed to mean that any adjudication is made by this Court on the legality or otherwise of the order of 15^th October 2019.

¶35

¶36

The pending interlocutory application does not

¶37

survive and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Sri Durga Prasad v. Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Durga Prasad v. Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. John Gabriel D Silva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R a Pradeep Vs Sri N Murari

Amarnath Jain Vs the Director

Mr. G Vaman Pai Vs Mr. Naveen Prabhu

M K Devendra Kumar Vs Dr.Venkatesh

B Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka