Dismissed

The Commissioner for v. Smt. Nazhath Jabeen

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WA/1763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order which upheld a settlement between the college management and a dismissed teacher. The Teachers sought pension benefits but waived claims for back wages. The Court held that since the penalty was illegal, the settlement was valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal rejected; impugned order of the Single Judge upholding the joint settlement memo is duly rejected.

The Commissioner for Vs Smt. Nazhath Jabeen — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1763 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR

¶12

OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

¶13

PALACE ROAD,

¶14

BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)

¶17

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. NAZHATH JABEEN W/O SRI MOHAMMED ZAFRULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS PRINCIPAL HASANATH COLLEGE NO.5, 8/2, BYRAWESHWARA LAYOUT HENNURBANDE, KALYANA NAGAR BANGALORE R/AT NO. 229, 4TH A CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE-560084.

¶20

THE PRESIDENT

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY NO.43, DISKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560042.

¶25

THE HON SECRETARY THE HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY NO.43, DISKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560042.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No-9521/2024.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9521/2014 (S-DIS) filed by respondent No.1 herein.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

¶36

before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶37

The petitioner faced the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Management of Hasanath College, which is run by the Hasanath Education Society. The petitioner was working as a Principal in the said College. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Management passed the punishment order imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service on 29.05.2005.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said order dated 29.05.2005, dismissing the petitioner from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal however, vide order dated 08.11.2013 passed in MA(EAT) No. 13/2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶39

The State Authorities in their statement of objection have categorically stated in paragraph Nos.30 to 35 as under :-

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

" 30. It is submitted that, perusal of para-47 of the EAT judgment clearly goes to show that the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry) proceedings. It is also clear on perusal of the charge-sheet, enquiry report etc. that the college authorities nowhere have mentioned as to under which rule they have proceeded / conducted enquiry against the petitioner because if they had proceeded against the petitioner as per Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 it is illegal/ incorrect because the said rules were framed in pursuance to Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 which was repealed as per Section 146(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and when the Act, 1975 has been repealed, the Rules 1978 is not force after coming into force of Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

¶44

31. It is submitted that, it was mandatory on the part of the college authorities to proceed/enquire against the petitioner only as per Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, but none of the records produced along the petition proves the point that they have conducted enquiry as per 2003 rules.

¶45

32. It is submitted that the statement made by the petitioner In para-26 to 39 all pertain to the decision rendered by the EAT which has upheld the dismissal of the Petitioner, but the petitioner nowhere state that the enquiry was held as per which rule.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Even If it is presumed that the college authorities have conducted enquiry as per the provisions contained in Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003, then as per 2nd proviso of rule 32 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003 they should have obtained prior permission and only thereafter they should have passed the dismissal order dated 29.05.2005.

¶50

33. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 and 4 herein have not taken approval from the competent authority either prior to suspending the Petitioner or deciding to dismiss her, thus whatever enquiry they have conducted as also the order of the Tribunal impugned herein are invalid and are liable to be quashed as per the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Sri B K Gopalakrishna's case cited supra.

¶51

34. It is submitted that, on the allegation that he was unauthorizedly absent for duties, the college authorities had Imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement as per order dated 08.07.2004 without talking prior approval as per 2nd provision of the Rules, 2003. Sri Gopalakrishna challenged penalty of compulsory retirement before the jurisdictional CAT which on 04.08.2006 upheld penalty order dated 08.07.2004. However, when the matter was taken up before this Hon'ble Court in WP No.14280/2006, this Hon'ble Court on 31.07.2009 quashed both the penalty order dated 08.07.2004 as well as order passed by the EAT on 04.08.2006. Thereafter, the college authorities took up the matter before the Division Bench

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

in Writ Appeal No.3669/2009 which came to be DISMISSED on 07.06.2013. Copies of the orders dated 31.07.2009 and 07.06.2013 is produced as ANNEXURE-R 1 AND R2.

¶56

35. It is submitted that, perusal of the above clearly goes to prove that this Hon'ble Court has upheld the 2"^ proviso of Rule 32 of 2003 rules. Thus the college authorities were bonnet to comply 2^o " proviso of 2003 rules."

¶57

Thus, the State Government in unequivocal term has taken a stand that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management against the petitioner, was not in accordance with the relevant rules.

¶58

If this is the stand of the Government Authorities, then the disciplinary inquiry and punishment got vitiated and the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service.

¶59

During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the management and the petitioner had entered into a compromise. The learned Single Judge, has recorded

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the terms of compromise in the impugned judgment

¶64

which would read as under:-

¶65

" 1. The Petitioner had challenged the Order of dismissal dated 2905.2055 issued by the 4th Respondent before the Educational Appellate Tribunal by filing MA(EAT) No.13/2005. However, the Appeal preferred by her was dismissed vide Judgment dated 08.11.2013.

¶66

2.The Petitioner being aggrieved has preferred the above writ petition and sought for quashing of the same.

¶67

3. It is submitted that during the hearing of the above petition, the Respondents No.3 and 4 and the Petitioner have decided to prefer the present Joint Memo on the following terms.

¶68

(i) The Petitioner has decided to bring an end to this litigation and has no claim of any sort from respondent M/s Hasanath Education Society and voluntarily decided to present this joint memo.

¶69

(ii) The Petitioner will be entitled to seek for payment of pension from 01.10.2012 from the Education Department and the Government and she will be paid the same by the Department by considering the notional fixation of pay as on 30.09.2012, based on the norms of the UGC.

¶70

(iii) The Management will cooperate for submission and forwarding of the proposal for payment of pension of the Petitioner and will request the Department for sanction of the pension and other benefits payable to the Petitioner

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

treating the services of the Petitioner from her initial date of appointment till 30.09.2012, the actual date of superannuation without reference to the order of dismissal passed or disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management against the Petitioner. Both the Order of Dismissal from service and that of the Hon'ble EAT hence require to be set aside."

¶74

By looking at the terms of memo, it is evident that

¶75

the petitioner has given up his claim for back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation.

¶76

Sri M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned AGA appearing for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the State Government was not party to the joint memo and therefore, the writ petition ought not to have been disposed off in terms of the joint memo filed by the Management and the petitioner.

¶77

Once the State Government has taken a categorical stand that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the relevant rules, we are of the opinion, the State Government should not have any objection with the terms of settlement as accepted, in the impugned order dated

¶78

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:8677-DB WA No. 1763 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

21.12.2023. We therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is why it is rejected.

¶82

In view of rejection of the appeal, pending interim applications if any, stand rejected.

¶83

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶85

NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Commissioner for v. Smt. Nazhath Jabeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner for v. Smt. Nazhath Jabeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathi

Smt Rukmini Vs Deputy Commissioner

Bangalore Development Authority Vs M/S. Bindu Ventures

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenathunnisa Vs Sri Krishnoji Rao

Uday R Devadiga Vs Smt Kamala

Smt. Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka