B. S. SHIROL Vs. SRI VEERBHADRESHWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.3.1999, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CRP No. 3917 of 1997. The appellant herein was appointed as Principal of Respondent 1 College. On account of certain alleged irregularities and misconduct the Managing Committee of the respondents constituted an Enquiry Committee to enquire into the alleged misappropriation of the college funds by the appellant. A charge-sheet containing eight charges of misconduct was served on the appellant on 28.1.1988. The appellant gave a detailed reply denying the charges against him. In his reply, he objected to the constitution of the Enquiry Committee by the Managing Committee and he sought for appointment of an impartial Enquiry Committee with a government nominee, in the background that he had complained against the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Committee without heeding to the request of the appellant, after holding enquiry, submitted a report that the charges framed against him were proved. Thereafter, the Managing Committee on the basis of the enquiry report passed the order of termination, terminating the services of the appellant. They sought for approval of the termination from Respondent 2. Respondent 2 informed the management that its action of dismissal of the appellant from services could not be accepted for want of prior approval in terms of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Grant-in-Aid Code Rules (for short "the Rules"). Taking note of the same the management withdrew the order of dismissal dated 1.12.1988 on 29.12.1988. It is further stated that Respondent 2 gave approval for taking action against the appellant but it is alleged that approval order was never produced before the Educational Appellate Tribunal (Additional District Judge). The Managing Committee, however, terminated the services of the appellant again on 11.4.1989. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal u/s. 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination of the appellant giving him all the consequential benefits. This time the management was aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the management challenged the same before the High Court by filing a revision petition. The High Court, after considering the respective contentions and looking to the material placed on record, allowed the revision petition and reversed the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel urged that the impugned order is patently unsustainable for reasons more than one. He contended that the very constitution of the Enquiry Committee by Respondent 1 management, was bad in law; in spite of specific representation made by the appellant to appoint an impartial committee consisting of the members who were not biased, which was not at all taken note of, the Committee constituted by the management proceeded to hold enquiry in which fair and proper opportunity was also not given to the appellant. He further submitted that the so-called approval said to have been granted by Respondent 2 was never produced before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of prior approval, order of termination passed for the second time on 11.4.1989 was also bad and could not be sustained and the Educational Appellate Tribunal was well justified in setting aside the order of termination of the services of the appellant for the reasons recorded therein; the High Court exercising jurisdiction in revision was not at all justified in disturbing the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in appeal. He submitted that the whole enquiry conducted and the ultimate order passed by the Managing Committee terminating the services of the appellant, were vitiated for the reason that the mandatory requirements for constitution of the Enquiry Committee and holding enquiry have not been followed as required u/s. 6(1) of the Act and Rules 17(12) and (13).

(3.) In opposition, Mr V.A. Mohta, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 made submissions in support of the impugned order.