T G Chandrashekarappa Vs Kuvempu University

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10666 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T.G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA T, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, SAHYADRI ARTS COLLEGE, R/O GANAPATHI LAYOUT, II MAIN, SHIVAMOGGA-577 203

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, 'JNANASAHYADRI', SHANKARGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 451

¶14

THE REGISTRAR KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, 'JNANASAHYADRI', SHANKARGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 451

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

¶18

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶21

07.04.2020 AND 11.11.2020 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURES-E AND F RESPECTIVELY IN SO FAR AS TREATING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION AS A PERIOD NOT SPENT ON DUTY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21.03.2020/07.04.2020 and 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 by which the period of suspension undergone by him was treated as not spent on duty.

¶26

The petitioner contends that he was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Sahyadri Arts College under the respondent No.1 - University. On 27.07.2017, he addressed a letter to the Principal of the College requesting action against a co-employee for not taking classes. However, the respondents treated the said letter of the petitioner as a misconduct and placed him under suspension pending a departmental enquiry. Later, a departmental enquiry was held against him and the Enquiry Officer submitted his

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶28

report dated 08.04.2019 stating that some of the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. A show cause notice dated 01.06.2019 was issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of withholding three increments affecting future increments and reduction of his pay to the basic pay in the time scale of pay for three years and without granting increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of three years, the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The respondent No.2 after considering the reply of the petitioner, passed an order dated 01.07.2019 withholding three annual increments without affecting the future increments and the period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.08.2017 till the date of reporting to duty was treated as dies non.

¶29

The petitioner challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka and Chancellor of the respondent No.1 - University by filing an appeal. The Hon'ble Governor in terms of his order dated 10.01.2020, held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was harsh and not proportionate to the gravity of the charges and consequently,

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶32

modified the penalty imposed by the respondent No.2 by reducing it to withholding of one annual increment without affecting future increments.

¶33

The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 21.03.2020 and signed on 07.04.2020 withholding one annual increment without affecting the future increments but also passed an order treating the period of suspension of the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2017 till the date of his reporting to duty as dies non as per Rule 100(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short, 'KCSR'). The petitioner then represented in terms of his representation dated 06.07.2020 and requested the respondent No.2 not to impose any other punishment than the one imposed by the Hon'ble Governor. He contends that the respondent No.2 in terms of order dated 11.11.2020, again passed an order treating the period of suspension of the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2017 to the date previous to the date on which he reported for duty as dies non . The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the orders dated 21.03.2020/07.04.2020 and 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.2.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Governor had reduced the punishment to withholding of one annual increment of the petitioner without affecting the future increments. He, therefore, contended that the order of the Disciplinary Authority treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as dies non is not justified. He, however, contended that the respondents without any basis and wrongly interpreting Rule 100(1)(b) of the KCSR had treated the period of suspension of the petitioner as dies non .

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner was not exonerated of the charges as the Hon'ble Governor did not disapprove the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges were proved. He contends that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was alone modified and reduced by the Hon'ble Governor. He contends that the question whether the period of suspension of the petitioner could be treated as dies non or not did not fall for consideration before the Hon'ble Governor. He contends that when the Disciplinary Authority had held that the charges were proved and the Appellate Authority had upheld it, the inevitable consequence had to

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶40

follow. Therefore, he contended that the impugned orders are just and proper and do not warrant interference.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶42

The statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2 reveals that the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 01.08.2017. The Articles of charge was issued on 09.10.2017. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Articles of charge on 23.10.2017. The Enquiry Officer appointed submitted a belated report on 08.04.2019 which was way beyond six months time prescribed for conduct of an enquiry under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2019 which was replied by him on 13.06.2019. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order imposing punishment on 01.07.2019 withholding three annual increments without affecting the future increments. The suspension order was revoked and the period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.08.2017 till the date of reporting to duty

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶45

was treated as dies non . An appeal was thereafter preferred by the petitioner before the Chancellor of the respondent No.1 who modified the punishment and reduced it to one annual increment without cumulative effect. Following this, the respondent No.2 passed the order deducting one annual increment of the petitioner without affecting the future increments and also treated the period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.08.2017 to the date of his reporting to duty as dies non. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 11.11.2020 withholding one annual increment of the petitioner without affecting the future increments and treating the period of his suspension from 01.08.2017 till the date previous to the date on which he reported to duty as dies non . It is, therefore, apparent that treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as dies non was an additional punishment imposed by the respondent No.2, though the Chancellor felt it appropriate to reduce the punishment to withholding one annual increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as dies non deserve to be interfered with. In this

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶47

regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others [2007 (3) MPLJ 525], where the Court held that declaring 240 days during which the employee was under suspension as dies non is a major penalty. Since the enquiry against the petitioner has spilled over the outer limit of six months prescribed, the orders dated 21.03.2020/07.04.2020 and 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as not spent on duty is in the nature of a punishment and is much more than one increment which is ordered to be withheld. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21.03.2020/07.04.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2017 to the date of his reporting to duty as dies non , and the subsequent order dated 11.11.2020 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.08.2017 till the date previous to the date on which he reported for duty as dies non deserve to be interfered with.

¶48

The Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.03.2020/07.04.2020 and 11.11.2020 passed by the

¶49

9 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:10451 WP No. 10666 of 2021

¶51

respondent No.2 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as dies non are set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to restore all monetary benefits payable to the petitioner. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

¶52

this order.

¶53

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

T G Chandrashekarappa v. Kuvempu University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T G Chandrashekarappa v. Kuvempu University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Somesh Bairy Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri. Prakash M E Vs the Commissioner

Shri Vinod Nayak Vs the Managing Director

Sri Ganapathi Vs State of Karnataka

Shobha C Vs Union of India

Sri. Satish B. K. Vs the Government of Karnataka