Allowed

Progressive Education Trust, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022WP/108522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for furnishing fake documents during regularization. The court held that issuing the order without considering the petitioner's reply violated natural justice principles and quashed the relevant communications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications dated 04.04.2016, 12.05.2016, and 23.09.2016 are quashed.

Progressive Education Trust, Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 108522 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 108522 OF 2016 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION TRUST, GULEDGUDD,TAL: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION) M.S. BUILDING,BENGALURU-01

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD,BENGALURU-01.

¶14

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, DHARWAD.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED:04.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-H.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 108522 of 2016

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is an educational institution running first grade college in terms of the Government notification dated 12/2/2004. The petitioner recommended the names of four lectures for regularization. One of the lecture whose name was not recommended, filed an application with the concerned, alleging that the petitioner has committed irresponsibility in the matter of regularization. On the basis of the said application, the first respondent secured report from the Assistant Director and cancelled regularization of the four lecturers. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the salary granted should not be withdrawn for furnishing fabricated documents for securing regularization of four lectures. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice at Annexure-F. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has issued a impugned communication dated 4/4/2016 calling upon the respondent No.3 to initiate the criminal proceedings against

¶23

¶24

WP No. 108522 of 2016

¶25

the petitioner for having furnished fabricated documents for regularization. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner is contrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1, calling upon the 3^rd respondent to initiate the criminal proceedings is one without authority of law.

¶27

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that regularization was cancelled since the same was secured by furnishing fabricated documents by the petitioner and as such, the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1 is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant for interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 108522 of 2016

¶30

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶31

learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Petitioner replied to the show cause notice issued by the respondent vide Annexure-F dated 18/3/2016. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has issued the impugned communication and the perusal of the same does not indicate consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause. Hence, the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner or without affording opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the same is arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law. Consequential, the communication issued by the authority concerned at Annexures-J and K are also requires to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 108522 of 2016

¶37

ii) Impugned communication dated 4/4/2016

¶38

issued by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-H, the impugned communication dated 12/5/2016 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-J and the communication dated 23/9/2016 issued by respondent No.3 at Anenxure-K are hereby quashed.

¶39

iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶40

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶41

In view of disposal of the application, all pending applications if any do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IAs are disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Progressive Education Trust, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Progressive Education Trust, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs Vittal S/O. Jyotiba Karande

Smt.Kamalavva W/O Shivamallappa Bhagoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Shankrappa Akkivalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Yalaguradappa Bhimappa Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Basavlingappa S/O Mahadevayya Vs the State of Karnataka