Sukrutha Pre University Independent College Vs B… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sukrutha Pre University Independent College Vs B… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to petitioners; writ petition dismissed and pending IAs disposed of as not surviving.

¶ORDER (final page)

Issue for consideration

Whether the tribunal's judgment dated 31.03.2016 in E.A.T.No.9/2012, setting aside the respondent's oral termination and directing reinstatement with back wages from 11.10.2012, should be quashed; and whether the respondent should be declared to have ceased to be an employee of the petitioners' institution from 11.10.2012 by voluntarily abandoning the post. +2 more

¶prayer (unnumbered, before para 1)

Court's answer

Before terminating the respondent neither a charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry conducted; the oral termination violated the principles of natural justice in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, and the tribunal therefore rightly passed the impugned judgment.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court (Puri Investments: interference under Article 227 only where findings are perverse), the tribunal, having considered the entire evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and no error was found in it warranting interference.

Key takeaways

The respondent produced medical certificates (Exs.P4 to P10) in proof of her ill-health; the doctor advised bed rest, she was diagnosed with a thyroid problem and was on medication since 2007, establishing that her absence was on medical ground.ratio¶14
Since RW.1 did not tender himself for cross-examination, the medical ground in Ex.R1 stood undisputed, there was no rebuttal evidence, and the tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference (recorded by this Court as against the respondent).ratio¶17
The respondent produced Ex.P2, the service register, to show that her last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/-, contrary to the petitioners' contention that she was appointed on Rs. 3,000/- per month.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – oral termination of an employee (appointed as Office Assistant; termination recorded as from the post of attender) without charge sheet or enquiry violates principles of natural justice (relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597). Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysuru, allowed the employee's appeal, set aside the oral termination and directed reinstatement with back wages and service benefits from 11.10.2012. Medical certificates (Exs.P4–P10) proved ill-health (thyroid ailment; on medication since 2007); the employer never decided the medical-leave application despite a direction by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. Management witness RW.1 declined cross-examination; his evidence was discarded and an adverse inference drawn. Applying the Article 227 perversity standard from M/s. Puri Investments v. M/s Young Friends and Co. (Civil Appeal No.1609/2022), the High Court found no error in the tribunal's findings, which were based on the entire evidence; service register Ex.P2 showed last drawn salary of Rs. 12,000/-. Writ petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 38394 OF 2016 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

SUKRUTHA PRE UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENT COLLEGE DATAGALLI, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE - 570022 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

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

SUKRUTHA EDUCATION SOCIETY

DATAGALLI, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE - 570022 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MOHAN B K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

B. P. PREMA W/O. SURESH,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT EWS-477, 2^ND STAGE, CITB, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND EDUCATION APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN APPEAL EAT NO.9/2012 DATED 31.03.2016 UNDER ANNEX-A; HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT CEASED TO BE EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIOENR INSTITUTION ON AND FROM 11.10.2012 AND THUS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE A TEACHER BY VOLUNTARY ABOUNDING THE POST.

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

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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed in E.A.T.No. 9 of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysuru.

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The respondent was appointed as an Office Assistant, in the petitioners' institution. The respondent was very irregular and habitual absentee. However, the management of the petitioners' institution tolerated the same on humanitarian grounds. The respondent on 23.05.2011 remained absent from the work without any prior permission or intimation and returned on 01.06.2011. She was asked to explain her unauthorized absence. The respondent gave some lame excuses to the petitioners and insisted the petitioners to treat her unauthorised absence as an

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

earned leave. It is contended that the respondent is not entitled to an earned leave. The petitioners refused to treat her absence accordingly. The respondent once again remained absent from 02.06.2011, and reported to the duty on 22.08.2011

with a medical certificate that the said absence be treated as medical leave. The petitioners have refused to treat the same as a medical leave.

The petitioners received a notice from the educational Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that the respondent came to know that her name is not recommended to

the grant in aid post, and in her place one Lakshmipathi was recommended. The respondent approached the petitioners for redressal of her grievance, however they orally told her that she was terminated from the service. The oral order of termination was challenged by the respondent in E.A.T.No.9 of 2012.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

The petitioners filed objections contending that the respondent is a habitual absentee without applying leave. It is also contended that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.05.2011. On 01.06.2011, the petitioners have issued a show cause notice. The respondent has a qualification of a nurse, she used to attend that work. She did not report to the work. Thus, the petitioners have terminated the service of the respondent. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal in E.A.T.No.9 of 2012. The tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

The petitioner in support of her case examined herself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The management examined one witness as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. RW.1 was examined, but RW.1 did not choose to tender himself

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

for cross-examination. Hence, the evidence was discarded by the tribunal.

The tribunal, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 9 and 11 in the affirmative, issue No. 10 in the negative, and issue No.12 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed with costs vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 and the oral termination of the respondent from the post of attender in the petitioners' institution was set aside, and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent forthwith in the said post with back wages and all other service benefits attached to the said post from 11.10.2012, and that the petitioners shall comply the order forthwith.

The petitioners, aggrieved by the judgment passed in E.A.T.No. 9 of 2012 filed this writ petition.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was appointed on a monthly salary of ₹3,000/- and not on a monthly salary of ₹12,000/-. The tribunal committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the respondent was drawing a salary of ₹12,000/-. He also submits that the petitioners have sent a list of teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government and had not recommended the name of the respondent for the grant in aid post.

The tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the medical certificates produced by the respondent. The tribunal has not adequately considered the material placed on record. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent led the evidence stating that the respondent was unwell, and she was absent from the duty on a medical ground and to show that she was unwell, she has produced the medical certificate marked as Exs.P4 to P10. The petitioners have examined one witness as RW.1, however he did not choose to tender himself for the crossexamination, and the tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of RW.1, and has passed the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

There is no dispute that the respondent was working as an office assistant from 28.07.1995. The petitioners' institution has secured grant in aid vide

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

order dated 02.03.2009. The respondent remained absent on two occasions on account of ill-health. wherein, the respondent to prove that she was unwell, the respondent has produced the medical certificates, marked as Exs.P4 to P10, wherein the doctor has advised her to take bed rest and which discloses that the respondent was unwell, and she was diagnosed with a thyroid problem, and since 2007 itself she was on medication. In the medical certificate accompanying Ex.P4, the doctor has certified that the respondent was on a treatment from 02.06.2011 to 23.08.2011, and the rest was necessary for her during that period.

The petitioners have issued a show cause notice as per Ex.P1, to explain her absence from 23.05.2011 to 01.06.2011. The respondent was unwell and the respondent has replied to the show cause notice as per Ex.P12 along with the representation at Ex.P14 enclosing the copy of medical certificate dated 23.05.2011.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

Although the respondent has submitted application for the grant of leave on medical grounds, the petitioners have not passed any order on the application submitted by the respondent, and the Deputy Director of Public Instruction has directed the petitioners to take necessary action in the matter, but the petitioners did not oblige.

The tribunal, considering the medical records has held that the respondent was sick and she had applied a leave on medical ground. In Ex.R1, the medical ground of the appellant is undisputed. He did not tender himself for the cross-examination. Admittedly, there is no rebuttal evidence. Therefore the tribunal has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the respondent. Further, the respondent has produced Ex.P2 i.e., the service Register to show that she has drawn last salary of ₹12,000/-.

Before terminating the respondent, neither the charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted. The

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

petitioners have orally terminated the respondent from the service. The order of termination violates the principle of natural justice in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India¹ . The Education Appellate tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Puri Investments vs. M/s Young Friends and Co. and others² , disposed of on 23.02.2022, held that the High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when its findings are perverse i.e.,

Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or

Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or

Based on inferences that are impermissible in law.

1 AIR 1978 SC 597

2 Civil Appeal No.1609/2022

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42122 WP No. 38394 of 2016

HC-KAR

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The writ petition is dismissed .

In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IAs, if any, would not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS CT:KHV