Allowed

Virupaksha J Abbigeri v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2024WP/329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two writ petitions filed by teachers from a school for the visually impaired against termination and salary deductions. Holding that the summary termination violated principles of natural justice and the Grant-in-Aid Code, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed respondents to initiate a fair inquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination and deduction orders set aside; direction to respondents to initiate fair inquiry within three months; direction to reinstate petitioners.

Virupaksha J Abbigeri Vs the Principal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2022 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.329/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIRUPAKSHA J. ABBIGERI SON OF MR. J.B. ABBIGERI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT MAMATHA STORE BUILDING OPPOSITE M.C.E. COLLEGE SALGAME ROAD, VIDYUTHNAGAR HASSAN-573 202.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.V.GIRI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WOMEN & CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR OF DISABLED WELFARE AND SENIOR CITIZEN VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS

¶15

¶16

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

3 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶18

4 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶19

5 . THE DISTRICT DISABLED WELFARE OFFICER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶20

6 . THE KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶21

7 . THE GENERAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202.

¶22

8 . THE TREASURER KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI D.V.VIJAY SIMHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)

¶25

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C TERMINATION ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 AND QUASH ANNEXURE-E DEDUCTION OF 2 INCREMENTS, 2 DAYS SALARY OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2018.

¶27

IN W.P. NO. 1008/2022

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

BASAVANAPPA S/O MR. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KEMPAMMA VATARA NEAR HOLY CROSS SCHOOL VIDYUTH NAGAR, M.C.E. COLLEGE SALGAME ROAD, VIDYUTHNAGAR HASSAN-573 202.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. S.V.GIRI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WOMEN & CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶34

2 . THE DIRECTOR OF DISABLED WELFARE AND SENIOR CITIZEN VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶35

¶36

3 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶37

4 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶38

5 . THE DISTRICT DISABLED WELFARE OFFICER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 202.

¶39

6 . THE KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶40

7 . THE GENERAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202.

¶41

8 . THE TREASURER KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF BLIND (R) SALAGAME ROAD NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO HASSAN-573 202.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. D.V. VIJAY SIMHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)

¶44

¶45

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C TERMINATION ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 AND QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E DEDUCTION OF 2 INCREMENTS 2 DAYS SALARY OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2018.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners were appointed as Teachers at M. Krishna School for the Blind on 03.11.1997. The petitioners assert that they faithfully discharged their duties in this capacity until their termination from the school, as initiated by an order dated 24.07.2018. The petitioners contend that a show cause notice was issued against them on 03.12.2017, followed by a subsequent show cause notice on 06.12.2017, resulting in an order by respondent No.7 on 13.01.2018, which deducted two yearly increments and two days' pay from the petitioners. Additionally, the petitioners

¶49

¶50

alleged harassment by respondent No.8, coupled with the use of unpleasant language. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that their participation in jatha program was impeded solely due to conflicts with the treasurer, and they have participated in the program on world disability day. It is asserted by the petitioners that proper inquiry was not conducted, and they were not afforded the opportunity to be heard, thus rendering the termination order and subsequent deductions unjustifiable and warranting their quashing.

¶51

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

¶52

The petitioners, Educators at a distinguished blind school, have been steadfastly serving the institution since 1997, exhibiting unwavering commitment and dedication to the noble cause of educating visually impaired

¶53

¶54

individuals. Despite the petitioners commendable service, the school, which enjoys the privilege of grant-in-aid, shockingly terminated the petitioners employment, invoking the pretext of the petitioners purported grave misconduct. In response, the petitioners have valiantly contested this unjust termination, providing irrefutable evidence in the form of comprehensive service records that unequivocally confirm the petitioners successful completion of their probationary period, thereby solidifying their permanent employee status.

¶55

Furthermore, the petitioners have aptly referenced the Grant-in-Aid Code for institutions catering to the visually impaired, vehemently asserting that any termination lacking a diligent inquiry into the petitioners permanent status flagrantly disregards established procedural norms and contravenes the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Consequently, this Court is entrusted with the duty of meticulously scrutinizing the

¶56

¶57

procedural intricacies surrounding the petitioners

¶58

termination within the purview of service jurisprudence, and dispensing equitable justice in accordance with the hallowed precepts of the law.

¶59

In delving into the procedural nuances inherent in service jurisprudence, it is incumbent upon this Court to uphold the sacred tenets of procedural fairness and natural justice, which serve as the cornerstone of a just and equitable society. At the heart of the petitioners’ claim lies the pivotal issue of their permanent employment status, a status irrevocably entwined with the successful culmination of their probationary period, as substantiated by cogent additional documents produced by the petitioner. Moreover, the Grant-in-Aid Code for institutions dedicated to the welfare of the visually impaired serves as a steadfast bastion of procedural rectitude, unequivocally stipulating that termination proceedings against permanent employees

¶60

¶61

necessitate a scrupulous inquiry prior to any precipitous action.

¶62

In elucidating the procedural principles underpinning service jurisprudence, it is imperative to underscore the cardinal precepts guiding such deliberations: (i) The consummation of a probationary period marks the pivotal juncture wherein an employee's permanent status crystallizes, affording them the sanctified protection enshrined within pertinent employment statutes and regulations.

¶63

(ii) The termination of a permanent employee's tenure invariably mandates strict adherence to the hallowed principles of due process, encompassing the indispensable facets of prior notice, the sacrosanct right to be heard, and unfettered access to judicious grievance redressal mechanisms. Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receives a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect the party. The

¶64

¶65

three main requirements of natural justice that must be made in every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias.

¶66

(iii) Institutions entrusted with the solemn duty of nurturing and empowering the visually impaired are irrevocably bound by the stringent strictures delineated within the Grant-in-Aid Code, which imperatively necessitate the meticulous observance of procedural regularity in all employment-related matters, including terminations.

¶67

In the light of these foundational principles, the petitioners summary termination bereft of any semblance of

¶68

due inquiry into their permanent status stands as an egregious affront to the sacrosanct principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Such arbitrary actions not only trample upon the petitioners inalienable rights as a permanent employee but also flagrantly contravene the inviolable precepts enshrined within the Grant-in-Aid Code.

¶69

¶70

In the wake of the foregoing exegesis, this Court holds that the petitioner's summary termination is rendered null and void, as it is irrevocably tainted by glaring procedural infirmities. Additionally, the respondents are solemnly directed to forthwith initiate a fair and impartial inquiry into the petitioners termination, affording them the hallowed opportunity to vociferously advocate their case and proffer any requisite elucidations. Consequently, the respondents are sternly enjoined to promptly reinstate the petitioners to their exalted position as permanent employees with immediate effect, thereby affording them the full panoply of attendant benefits and privileges commensurate with their status.

¶71

In the impugned order, grave misconduct has been imputed against the petitioners, serving as teachers at a blind school. The gravity of the allegations suggests a severe breach of conduct, warranting immediate attention and action from the institution. However, it is crucial to

¶72

¶73

note that the petitioners have been dismissed from service without being afforded the fundamental opportunity to defend themselves or refute the allegations levelled against them. This lack of due process not only violates the petitioners basic rights as employees but also undermines the principles of natural justice and fairness inherent in any disciplinary proceeding.

¶74

The doctrine of natural justice encompasses the fundamental principles of audi alteram partem ("hear the other side") and nemo judex in causa sua ("no one should be a judge in their own cause"). These principles dictate that before any adverse action is taken against an individual, they must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, respond to the allegations made against them, and defend their rights. The denial of such an opportunity renders any disciplinary action procedurally flawed and legally untenable.

¶75

¶76

In the case at hand, the allegations of grave misconduct against the petitioners carry serious implications for their employment and reputation. However, the absence of an opportunity for the petitioners to provide their version of events, present evidence, and challenge the accusations constitutes a clear violation of their right to due process. It is imperative to recognize that even in instances of alleged misconduct, employees are entitled to fair treatment and procedural fairness.

¶77

The dismissal of the petitioners from service without due process not only deprives them of their livelihood but also casts a shadow of injustice over the entire disciplinary process. Such actions undermine the credibility and integrity of the institution's disciplinary procedures and erode the trust between employees and employers.

¶78

¶79

In addressing allegations of grave misconduct, it is incumbent upon the institution to adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. This entails conducting a thorough and impartial investigation, providing the employee with a detailed explanation of the allegations, affording them the opportunity to respond, and ensuring that any decision is based on objective evidence and established procedures.

¶80

Failure to uphold these principles not only renders disciplinary actions vulnerable to legal challenge but also undermines the institution's commitment to justice, fairness, and respect for individual rights. Therefore, in the interest of upholding the rule of law and preserving the integrity of the disciplinary process, the dismissal of the petitioners from service without due process must be rectified, and the petitioners should be granted a fair opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations of grave misconduct.

¶81

¶82

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶83

proceeds to pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) The writ petitions are allowed;

¶86

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.07.2018 passed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 vide Annexure-C and the order dated 13.01.2018 passed by respondent No.7 vide Annexure-E are set aside;

¶87

(iii) The respondent Nos.6 to 8 are directed to forthwith initiate a fair and impartial enquiry affording opportunity to petitioners to vociferously advocate their case;

¶88

(iv) The enquiry shall be concluded within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶89

(v) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

Virupaksha J Abbigeri v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virupaksha J Abbigeri v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arati Anavekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganesh C., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Ramesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Manjegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Moshanandam, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. D. Mahendra, Vs State of Karnataka