Appellant challenged a Single Judge's order remitting a dismissal matter to Enquiry Officer where no order was served on petitioner. Court followed ECIL ratio on service rights and dismissed appeal.
Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs attached.
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.
W.A. No.424/2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO.424 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. SHANKARA MADA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS SECRETARY SHREE KSHETHRA PERARA SEVA SAMITHI REGD. PERARA MAHASAMSTHANA PERARA, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-574 151 …APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. K. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W.A. No.424/2023
2
CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018
D.K.DISTRICT-574 142 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2023 PASSED IN WP No.12011/2022 (GM-RC) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.A. No.424/2023
3
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated March 03, 2023 in W.P.No.12011/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.
1Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Temple’
W.A. No.424/2023
4
ordered. Though, several notices were issued, petitioner he did not participate in the proceedings. Vide enquiry report dated 14.11.2016, petitioner was held guilty and he was dismissed from service with effect from 20.11.2016. After a lapse of five years, petitioner has preferred an appeal in 2021 before the Appellate Authority and it was rejected. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the respondent No.4. Feeling aggrived, petitioner is before this Court.
W.A. No.424/2023
5
was forced by the devotees and villagers. This conduct of the petitioner makes it clear that, he is not aggrieved by the dismissal order but questioning the same at the instance of the third parties;
the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the question of limitation. As per Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 an appeal against the order of dismissal or other penalties against the servants of the Temple shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order imposing penalty.
W.A. No.424/2023
6
Managing Committee has not preferred to challenge the impugned order.
W.A. No.424/2023
7
considering the fact that petitioner had accepted the order and challenged it after five years.
report of the enquiry officer and dismissal order was not served upon the petitioner as recorded in para 9 of the impugned order.
ratio laid down in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad &Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors2 , wherein it is held thus:
“ (iii) Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively, and he would not known in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether,
2(1993) 4 SCC 727
W.A. No.424/2023
8
therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
has exercised his discretionary power remitted the matter to the Enquriy Officer for fresh consdieration. Keeping in view, that petitioner was working as Darshana Pathri and that the Enquiry report and the order dismissal order was not served
upon him. We find no ground to entertain this appeal to interfere with the discretionary power exercise by the learned Single Judge and it is accordingly, dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in exercising discretionary power to remit the matter for fresh consideration when the enquiry report and dismissal order were not served on the petitioner.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal vitiated the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's finding that the discharge of rule regarding service of documents caused the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.Followed¶60
_Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors._ (1993) 4 SCC 727 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. SHANKARA MADA
BALAKRISHNA SHETTY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
PERARA SHRI BRAHMADEVARU ISHTADEVATHA BALAVANDI VYAGRA CHAMUNDI DEVA DAIVASTHANA
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court