The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Karnataka State Commission for SC/ST summoning management personnel. The court held that the Commission acts within its powers to investigate complaints of caste-based discrimination andürted summons are sustainable, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.12955 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO.3/2017 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE COMMISISON FOR SC & ST ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 INITIATED BY R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER (PROCEEDINGS COPY NOT FILED) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the notice dated 23.02.2017, vide Annexure-M issued by respondent No.1.
(a) Petitioner No.1 is the Chief Executive of Gokula Education Foundation, which is running several educational institutions in Bangalore City and outside. Petitioner No.2 is working as Principal and petitioner No.3 is working as Assistant Professor at M.S.Ramaiah College of Law (for short, ‘MSRCL’), which is one of the institution of Gokula Education Foundation.
4
Rules. Due to this Management observed that respondent No.2 was lacking concentration and dedication at various stages in relation to performance of his duties and conduct as a teacher working at MSRCL. According to the petitioner, some of the instances of misconduct are irresponsible behavior of maintenance of attendance at Annual Sports meet; uninformed absence from College during working hours and non-cooperation with Management, Principal and other staff members and also abject failure to lend support to Principal in controlling students and to maintain required degree of order / discipline amongst student, etc.,
(c) In spite of the Management of MSRCL facing growing rate of attrition of faculty members. MSRCL evolved a framed policy known as ‘Progression Policy’ with attractive pay package to the new recruits during October 2015. This policy, which was formulated for new recruits, was also offered to existing faculty. Though
5
respondent No.2 admitted that he was content with the existing pay package, he conveyed his acceptance to the progression policy belatedly, which was not acceptable to the Management of MSRCL.
(d) In addition to the issue pertaining to the pay policy, respondent No.2 has also created an atmosphere of insubordination on various occasions. On 24.08.2016 at about 10.40am, he entered the chamber of the Petitioner No.2 and declared that he would sit there in protest without leaving the chamber till all his alleged grievances are settled. Due to which there is lot of embarrassment for Petitioner No.2 – Management.
(e) In view of the continuous mis-conduct of the respondent No.2, a show cause notice was issued on 08.10.2016 requiring him to show cause as to why a major punishment should not be given to him. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was placed under suspension vide
6
Annexure-A3. Subsequently, respondent No.2 was issued with charge memo vide AnnexureC.
(f) This being the state of affairs respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 26.10.2016 vide Annexure-D seeking redressal of his grievance approached respondent No.1. Based on which respondent No.1 issued notice on 21.11.2016 vide Annexure-E. Petitioners herein submitted reply with supporting documents and thereafter, appeared in person before the respondent No.1. At the instance of respondent No.1 petitioner revoked suspension order of respondent No.2, vide Annexure-A dated 06.02.2017.
(g) Pursuant to the revocation of suspension, a detailed enquiry was conducted and charge was proved against respondent No.2 and as he was found guilty he was terminated from the employment by the management and the letter of termination was communicated to the
7
respondent No.2. During this time the proceedings 10.02.2017 pending before respondent No.1 was preponed from 28.04.2017 to 17.03.2017, vide Annexure-M and notice was sent to the petitioners. The petitioners have not received any notice from respondent No.1 pertaining to hearing date as 17.03.2017.
(h) On 18.03.2017 around 1 pm, respondent No.2 came to the College along with Police Constable and 3 to 4 unknown persons, started taking photographs at the chambers of the Principal/Petitioner No.2. On enquiry, petitioner- No.2 came to know that respondent No.2 had registered FIR in Cr. No.33/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of SC & ST (PA) Act, 1989.
(i) This being the state of affair, respondent No.2 having initiated proceedings before the respondent No.1, respondent No.2 was acting adversely to the management, his official
8
duties and responsibilities assigned to them. Due to the impending examinations during June-July 2017 and other academic activities of MSRCL were affected severely. The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were supposed to take classes for students in MSRCL were required to appear before respondent No.1 as a complaint was initiated by respondent No.2. Hence, they were unable to concentrate on work and discharge academic responsibilities, which would affect the students.
(j) Petitioners aggrieved by this proceedings before respondent No.1 initiated by respondent No.2 in Case No.3/2017, have approached this Court, inter alia, contending that the respondent No.1 does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent No.2.
9
petitioner as follows:
(ii) It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.1 does not have jurisdiction in relation to the alleged grievances raised by the respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.1 could not have registered a case against the petitioners, much less, issuing notice for appearance. It was further contended that since grievance of respondent No.2 pertain to his employment, it would be beyond the purview and jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to entertain any adjudication in a matter pertaining to employment of respondent No.2 with the
10
Management of MSRCL and against the petitioners.
(iii) It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner’s that on bare reading of the Complaint registered there is no case made out by respondent No.2 with regard to any discrimination having so inflicted against respondent No.2. He further contends that on the first date of hearing before respondent No.1 petitioners have appeared and according to them respondent No.1 is biased and prejudiced against the petitioners. Therefore, it is their apprehension that there would not be proper enquiry or unbiased hearing.
(iv) It is also contended that the action initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 is nothing but an act of revenge against the petitioners and mere fact of registration of complaint before the respondent No.1 is pursuant to the enquiry conducted against respondent No.2 in departmental enquiry
11
proceedings by the management of MSRCL. Learned counsel further contends that the proceedings initiated before the respondent No.1 is abuse of process of law.
(v) Learned counsel further contends that Petitioner No.1 is presently, aged 71 years old and Petitioner No.2 is aged 59 years and presently they are not associated with the Management of MSRCL. In view of suspension order of respondent No.2 by Management of MSRCL, the vindictive and revengeful action borne out by the respondent No.2 resulted in issuing of notice by respondent No.1 to the petitioner’s. He further contends that respondent No.2 in fact had initiated proceedings before Education Appellate Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, which came to be rejected. Hence, as back slash and counter attack with the termination order issued by the Management of MSRCL, respondent No.2 has initiated this complaint
12
before these persons which is deliberately motivated.
can pass any order against the petitioners. Hence, he contends that Complaint registered before respondent No.1 is not maintainable for two reasons, firstly, the Management of the institutions of MSRCL is not made a party to this petition, secondly, petitioners are made parties, and thirdly powers of the Commissioner is not extended to adjudicate the process. Therefore, the complaint filed before respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed. (vii) Learned counsel for petitioner’s has placed reliance in the case of M.B.SIDDALINGASWAMY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.
13
NO.63405/2016 – DD 22ND NOVEMBER 2020,
in support of his case to demonstrate that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that power of the Commission was advisory in nature and positive direction was given after adjudication of a dispute between the parties therein, which was not correct position of law and hence the writ petition came to be allowed in the said case, stated supra.
respondent No.2 vehemently contends that:
(1) respondent No.2 was an obedient employee of the esteemed organization of MSRCL diligently discharging duties and responsibilities assigned to him and he is the only teacher having UGC prescribed qualifications, such as, Doctorate in Human Rights, besides holding a Master’s degree in Politics with specialization in International Relations along with a M. Phil degree in
14
International studies – all from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
(2) He further contends that there has not been a single complaint in the past history of unprofessional or indecent behavior. It is his contention that Petitioner No.2, who is junior to respondent No.2 was drawing higher salary, which caused lot of embarrassment to him. He further contends that there is disparity with regard to the pay scales. He requested the petitioners to remove disparity which was not taken in good taste by petitioners. Due to the discrimination made against the respondent No.2 on the basis of his caste, the management had not provided the necessary up-gradation in salary and promotion. These acts of the discrimination were made by petitioner’s against respondent No.2, due to which respondent
15
No.2 registered complaint before the respondent No.1.
(4) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contends that he was paid less salary, which was not commensurate to his qualification for the only reason that respondent No.2 belongs to SC community. He further contends that there is unbearable torture and atrocities perpetuated by the petitioners against respondent No.2 and also by MSRCL and respondent No.2 was harassed because of his caste. Despite revoking suspension after registration of the complaint before the respondent No.1
16
within two days thereafter the Management
of MSRCL terminated the services of respondent No.2 at the instigation of petitioners as the action of the petitioners were vindictive against respondent No.2. He further contends that this kind of action and behaviour of the petitioners is unwanted and unbecoming of
Professors/Lecturers of law.
(5) Learned counsel further contends that left with no alternative he registered a complaint before the respondent No.1. He further contends that powers and functions of the Commission may not be to adjudicate but to determine the rights of the parties inter se and advisory in nature.
the Commission is well within the power to enquiry into specific complaint with respect
17
to deprivation of right and safe guards of the SC and ST in Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate Authority.
(7) Learned counsel further contends that Section 9 further lays down the procedure for such report to be laid before the Legislature explaining action taken or proposed to be taken. He further contends that the Commission has power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person or any part of the State and examine him on oath and it has power of Civil Court to file a suit and investigate the matter. Learned counsel further contends that powers of the Commission cannot be curtailed by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
18
the complaint registered by respondent No.2. Proceedings are only at the stage of issuance of notice and for investigation. No adjudicatory order has been passed yet by the Commission and the petitioners have rushed to this Court purporting the order to be adjudicatory in nature, which is not proper and Petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands. On the basis of these submissions respondent No.2 seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
(9) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Commission, has contended that the Commission has got the power to investigate into the matter of discrimination with regard to SC and ST and such powers are borne under Section 8 of the Act. Commission, therefore, has power to make a report to the State Government for making certain recommendations and suggest the measures that has to be taken
19
by the State for effective implementation of the advice.
(10) He further contends that based on such recommendations and report the State Government shall place such report before the Legislation for proposed action to be taken in that regard. Therefore, he contends that the Commission is well within its power to entertain the complaint and conduct suitable investigation in that regard. He further contends that the present petition filed by the petitioners are premature and the same deserves to be rejected.
20
conducting hearing and summoning the petitioner is unsustainable in law?
21
se dispute between respondent No.2 and petitioner and neither it is the scope of petition.
“Section 8 : Functions of the Commission :
The functions of the commission shall be as follow:
(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;
22
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development in the State.
(d) to make recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the State for the effective implementation of safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to make report to the State Government annually and at such other time as the Commission may deem fit.
(e) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed:
Provided that if any matter specified in this section is dealt with by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have jurisdiction on such matter.”
23
“Laying of Report:- The State Government shall cause such reports to in clause (d) of Section 8 to be laid before each House of the State Legislature explaining action taken or proposed to be taken and the reasons, if any, for non-acceptance of the recommendations.”
10. ‘Powers of the Commission’ is described
under Section 10 of the Act, which is as follows:
“Powers of Commission:- The Commission shall, while investigating any matter under section 8, have all the powers of a civil court in trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely:
24
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.”
11. Admittedly, respondent No.2 belongs to
Scheduled Caste. It is his allegation in the complaint filed before respondent No.1 that there are atrocities, in-subordination and harassment caused to him due to his caste and his salary is reduced and his entitlement of his posting is not in accordance with his proficiency and qualification only for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. These are aspects which require detailed enquiry and investigation. This Court cannot sit in arm chair of an enquiry officer and conduct investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to investigate and conduct a reoving enquiry with regard to contentions raised by respondent No.2 and petitioners and to the veracity of the contentions raised by both parties.
12. Nevertheless, coming back to the functions
and powers of the Commission in view of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act is well within its power to summon a
25
person and investigate into the matter on the basis of the complaint with regard to any deprivation of right and safe guards of the person belonging to SC and ST and it is not in dispute that Commission has power, as vested under Civil Code, with regard to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any document and receiving evidence on affidavits. Hence, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted to say that the Commission does not have power to issue notice, summon or enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint before it by respondent No.2.
26
Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act and it is well within the powers of the Commission to investigate into the matter and arrive at a finding of advisory note to the concerned parties for enforcement of such recommendation.
27
proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 does not deserves any interference by this Court.
ORDER
(2) However, it is needless to mention that considering the age of petitioner No.1 and 2 being senior citizens of 71 and 69 years respectfully, the Commission shall keep in mind
that advanced age of Petitioners, while making their personal appearance mandatory.
Sd/ JUDGE
VK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the initiation of proceedings by the Karnataka State Commission for SC/ST in issuing notice and summoning petitioners is unsustainable in law?
Whether the proceedings initiated by the Commission by issuing notice are liable to be quashed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.B.Siddalingaswamy vs State of Karnataka and OthersDistinguished¶14
M.B.SIDDALINGASWAMY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P. NO.63405/2016 – DD 22ND NOVEMBER 2020
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri S.M.Acharya
Dr.Manjushree Mishra
Sri Om Prakash
The Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Dr.G.Srinivas
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
