Sri Keshavamurthy R Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Keshavamurthy R Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of: respondent-Institution directed to pay subsistence allowance for the suspension period 13.02.2016 to 30.05.2021 within 04 weeks; State Government directed to take an informed, lawful decision on the pending dismissal proposal of 21.06.2022, with the dismissal order remaining ineffective absent State Government approval; reinstatement not directed owing to the petitioner's superannuation on 30.05.2021.

Issue for consideration

Whether an order of dismissal of the Principal of a Polytechnic (Aided) passed by the Management can take effect without approval of the State Government, the final appointing authority. +1 more

Court's answer

Staff appointments at the aided institution require State Government approval; the Management only forwards the proposal; therefore the final appointing authority is the State Government, not the Management. The respondent's contention that no Government approval is required for the dismissal order is belied by the fact that the Management itself forwarded the dismissal proposal for Government approval, and it is not open to the Institution to take a different stand before this Court.

Ratio / Principle

Since the State Government is the final authority for making the appointment, only the Government can be the final authority for imposing punishment on the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Agreeing with the Co-ordinate Division Bench in WA.No.200084/2022 c/w CCP.No.200075/2022 (order dated 22.07.2025), Rule 32 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 applies and mandates seeking prior approval before passing the order of dismissal of the Principal of a Polytechnic (Aided) College; accordingly, without approval of the State Government the petitioner's service cannot be terminated.ratio¶10
Reinstatement cannot be directed because the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 30.05.2021.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (D K Singh and S Rachaiah; judgment per D K Singh) — Writ Appeal No. 964 of 2025 (S-DIS), disposed of on 13.01.2026. Appointment of staff of an aided polytechnic is made only upon State Government approval, making the Government the final authority both for appointment and for imposing punishment/dismissal; the Management, having itself forwarded the dismissal proposal for Government approval, cannot contend that no approval is required. Following the Co-ordinate Division Bench in WA.No.200084/2022 c/w CCP.No.200075/2022 (order dated 22.07.2025), the Division Bench holds that Rule 32 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 mandates seeking prior approval before passing the dismissal order of the Principal of a Polytechnic (Aided) College, so the dismissal order dated 21.06.2022 shall not come into effect without State Government approval; the Government was directed to take an informed decision on that proposal in accordance with law. As the appellant had attained superannuation on 30.05.2021, reinstatement could not be directed, but the Institution was directed to pay subsistence allowance for the suspension period 13.02.2016 to 30.05.2021 within four weeks. Background rules noted: Rule 98(1)(A)-(B) Karnataka Civil Service Rules (subsistence allowance); Chapter 14, Rule 92(3)(B), Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (six-month cap on suspension without extension approval).

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2025 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY R S/O LATE B.M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN) R/AT NO.592, 8^TH LINK ROAD

LALITHA MAHAL NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT -570 028. ALSO GIVEN THE TEMPORARY ADDRESS AT

BENGALURU AT C/O L. RAMESH NO.5, 1^ST FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS ROAD, OPP. UAS LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 084.

&APPELLANT

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE COMMISSIONER, COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY KURUNJI BAGH, SULLIA,

DAKSHINA KANNADA 3 574 327.

KVG POLYTECHNIC (AIDED) KURUJIBAGH, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA 3 574 327. REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

NEHRU SMARAKA VIDYA KENDRA TRUST, KARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 083. REPTD.BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, DR. RENUKAPRASAD K.V.

SRI. VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC JANGALPALYA, BANNERGHATTA BENGALURU 3 560 083. REPTD. BY ITS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PANDURANGA M NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. P S RAJAGOAPL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R7)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION No. 30339/2024 (SERVICE-DIS) DATED 25.04.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

Page No.2 Retyped and Replaced Vide Chamber Order dated 10.02.2026

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30339/2024 filed by the appellant seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondent No.4 - Management of the KVG Polytechnic (Aided), KurujiBagh, Sullia, Dakshina, Kannada.

The petitioner, who functioned as the Principal of KVG Polytechnic, was placed under suspension by the Management Committee on 13.02.2016. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not concluded within a period of six (06) months from the date of his suspension. The petitioner, therefore filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2271/2022 seeking revocation of order of suspension and reinstatement in service. The Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 06.04.2022 directing the College Management to conclude the inquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the order.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

It appears that the Director of Technical Education, vide order dated 30.06.2017 directed the Management of the said College to revoke the suspension of the petitioner with immediate effect and reinstated him to his in parent institution9s service. It was further directed that an urgent inquiry into the allegations against him should be completed and the report of the inquiry be submitted.

While giving the aforesaid directions, the Director of Technical Education, noted that the petitioner was suspended on 13.02.2016 and even after expiry of 16 months from the date of suspension, charge sheet was not issued to him and the inquiry was not completed. As per Rule 98 (1) (A) and (B) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, a suspended employee must be provided with subsistence allowance. It was also stated that as per Chapter 14, Rule 92 (3)(B) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the period of suspension should not exceed 06 months. If the inquiry does not get completed, within a period of 06 months, the Secretary of the Institution should submit a proposal to the competent authority to extend the suspension

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

period beyond 06 months and obtain requisite permission for extension of suspension period.

Thus, the Director of Technical Education held that

the Management would not have power to keep an employee under suspension beyond a period of 06 months except by approval of the competent authority. This order was never challenged by the Management in any other proceedings. The Management, however, had completed the disciplinary proceedings much after expiry of 06 months from the date of suspension of the petitioner and proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service vide order dated 21.06.2022, and sent the same for approval to the Government. The Government till date has not taken any decision on the aforesaid proposal of the Government. As the Government did not take any decision on the proposal to dismiss the petitioner from service, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.30339/2024 before the learned Single Judge as mentioned above. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petition permitting the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal after the competent authority approves the proposal of dismissal of the petitioner

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

from the service, if the competent authority would approve the order of dismissal. Insofar as the order passed by the Management refusing to grant subsistence allowance is concerned, the liberty has been granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority against the order passed by the Management.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Management had forwarded the proposal to dismiss the petitioner from service vide order dated 21.06.2022 to the Government. However, the Government has not taken a decision till date. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2271/2022 dated 06.04.2022, as well as the order passed by the Director of Technical Education dated 30.06.2017, the petitioner ought to have been paid his subsistence allowance for his suspension period.

As noted above, the Director of Technical Education

vide order dated 30.06.2017, had directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his parent institution9s service and the inquiry to be completed on urgent basis. Despite such a direction by the competent authority neither the petitioner was

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

reinstated in service nor disciplinary proceedings were finalized on urgent basis no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner.

We have perused the charge-sheet. It is not in dispute that the petitioner9s appointment was made with the approval of the State Government. A proposal to appoint staff is sent to the Government, and only after the Government grants its approval, the person gets appointed. Thus, the final authority for the appointment of the petitioner is the State Government, and not the Management. The Management is only required to forward the proposal for appointment. We do not find much substance in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that there is no requirement for State Government9s approval to the order passed by the Management dismissing the petitioner from services. This stand of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Rajagopal appearing for the respondent gets belied as the respondent itself has forwarded the proposal to dismiss the petitioner for approval of the Government. It is not open to the respondent - Institution to take a different stand now before this Court.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

Even otherwise, we are of the view that since the State Government is the final authority for making the appointment, it would only be the Government who will be the final authority for imposing the punishment on the petitioner.

Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.200084/2022 c/w CCP.No.200075/2022, vide order dated 22.07.2025, has held that Rule 32 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 would be applicable, which mandates seeking prior approval before passing the order of dismissal of the Principal of a Polytechnic (Aided) College. It is the Government who pays the salary to the staff of the Government Polytechnic (Aided) College. We respectfully agree with the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in WA.No.200084/2022 c/w CCP.No.200075/2022, dated 22.07.2025, and thus, we are of the considered view that without approval of the State Government, the petitioner's service cannot be terminated.

We cannot direct the respondent-Institution to take back the petitioner and reinstate him into service as the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30.05.2021. However, we direct the respondent-Institution to

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1975-DB WA No. 964 of 2025

HC-KAR

pay the subsistence allowance for the period when the petitioner was kept under suspension i.e., 13.02.2016 to 30.05.2021, within a period of 04 weeks from today.

In the meantime, the State Government should take an informed decision on the proposal submitted by the Management for imposing major penalty of dismissal on the petitioner in accordance with law.

The State Government should take its decision after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as we have held that, without the approval of the State Government, the order of dismissal of the petitioner shall not come into effect.

Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20