Janatha Education Society (Jes)(R) Vs Smt. Sneha a Hadli

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 25156 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY (JES)(R) VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶9

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE PRINCIPAL VIVKEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GUDIMAVU, KUMBALGODU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 074 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF JES(R) UNDER SOCIETY ACT 1962.

¶11

…PETITIONERS.

¶12

(BY SRI. SARAWANA S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. SNEHA A HADLI W/O SRI GAJANAND PATIL AGED 35 YEARS,

¶17

WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN CIVIL DEPARTMENT, VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GUDIMAVU, KUMBALGODU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 074

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. PARTHASARAHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY N MA(EAT) NO. 04/2016 DATED 25/7/2023 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2023 passed in M.A.(EAT)No.4/2016 by the learned XXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-7).

¶27

The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶28

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the petitioner No.2's institution with effect from 03.08.2013 in the Department of Civil Engineering. During, February 2016, the respondent received a message on her mobile phone through WhatsApp which stated that the principal of petitioner no.2-institution was involved in examination malpractice and the same was published in the newspaper. The said message was forwarded by the respondent to her colleagues. Consequently, after enquiry, petitioner No.2 has passed an order of dismissal and terminated the respondent from service. The respondent, aggrieved by the order of termination, filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M.A(EAT)No.4/2016. The petitioners appeared and filed the

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

objections contending that the appeal filed by the respondent is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioners have admitted that the Vivekananda Institute of Technology is affiliated with the All India Council for Technical Education (A statutory body of Government of India). It is also contended that as per the amendment made to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, on 11.04.1998, the insertion of Section 1(3)(iv)(d-a) held that if an institution is affiliated to All India Council for Technical Education then it cover under the All India Counsel for Technical Education Act, 1987 and not under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

The respondent, to substantiate her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and marked three documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.3. The officer of the petitioners was examined as R.W.1 and marked four documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.4.

¶33

The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, framed the following points for consideration:

¶34

1. Whether the Appellant proves that Termination Order passed by the Respondents No.1 and 2

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

bearing No.JES/1473/2015-16 dated 19.02.2016 is against to the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside?

¶39

2. Whether the Appellant is entitle for the relief claimed in the Appeal?

¶40

3. What Order?

¶41

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered points number 1 and 2 in the affirmative and point number 3 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the petitioners bearing No.JES/1473/2015-16 dated 19.02.2016 was set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent to her original cadre with a direction to give all the benefits to the respondent from 19.02.2016, if she is already removed from the job on the basis of the impugned order. The petitioners aggrieved by the judgment passed in M.A(EAT)No.4/2016, filed this writ petition.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent received a message on her mobile phone through WhatsApp, which stated that the principal of petitioner no.2-

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

institution was involved in examination malpractice and the same message was circulated to her colleagues. The petitioners have rightly terminated the respondent from service. He also submits that the appeal filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and it committed an error in passing impugned judgment. He also submits that the respondent has not laid any evidence regarding the fact that the respondent was not gainfully employed from the date of termination till passing the judgment by the Education Appellate Tribunal. The Education Appellate Tribunal committed an error in granting all consequential benefits to the respondent. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that before passing an order of termination, no charge memo was issued and enquiry was not conducted. Hence, the order of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi

¶48

vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

597 . He submits that the order of termination is banned/barred. The educational Appellate Tribunal has rightly passed an impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Perused the records and considered the submissions of

¶53

the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is as follows:

¶54

Whether the petitioners prove that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous?

¶55

There is no dispute that the respondent was working as an Assistant Professor in petitioner no.2-institution. The petitioners have made an allegation against the respondent that the respondent has received a WhatsApp message alleging that the principal was involved in malpractice. The said message was circulated by the respondent to her colleagues. The petitioners, without issuing any show cause notice calling

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

for an explanation from the respondent, have directly passed in an order of termination. The order of termination passed by the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice. And further, the petitioners have not produced any report to show that any enquiry was conducted before passing an order of termination. The Tribunal taking into consideration that no enquiry was conducted before passing an order of termination. The impugned order of termination passed by the petitioners is in violation and contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi supra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the substantive and procedural laws and actions taken under them will have to pass under the test under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The tests of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be diverse from the needs of examination. The tests have to be pragmatic; otherwise, they would cease to be reasonable. The procedures must be just, fair and reasonable. Even though there is no specific provision to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of the individual. The duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of function to be performed by the authority. It is

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

thereby conclusively held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.

¶62

The power of termination of the service of the respondent involves civil consequences and therefore the procedure contemplated sought to have been followed. The nature and extent of adhering to the principles of natural justice depends upon the facts and circumstances, but at the same time, it is also well accepted that the principles of natural justice can be read into a provision, unless applicability of such a principle of natural justice is expressly or impliedly excluded. Admittedly, in the instant case, no said procedure has been followed by the petitioners and directly passed in order of termination. The order of termination passed by the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice. The Education Appellate Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the order of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice and rightly allowed the appeal.

¶63

Insofar as back wages is concerned, the Tribunal, from the perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, has

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46746 WP No. 25156 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

not recorded a finding regarding the back wages. Further, learned counsel for the respondent has supplied the copy of the deposition of P.W.1. From the perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 has not deposed in the examination-in-chief that he was not gainfully employed from the date of termination of service till reinstatement. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal could not have granted full back wages to the respondent. The Tribunal committed an error in granting full back wages. Considering the entire case on record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is entitled for 50% back wages. To that extent, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal requires to be modified.

¶67