SURESH H.L. Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SARVODAYA VIDHYAVARDHAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 08.07.2017 passed in E.A.T No.04/2016 on the file of Education Appellate Tribunal and the Principal District Judge, Mangalore, D.K. by which I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, r/w Section 94(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, (for short 'the Act') is dismissed, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the 1st respondent - Sarvodaya Vidhyavardhaka Sangha (for short 'the Institution'). While he was working as such, there was a complaint dated 29.09.2014 by a female student against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment. In that regard, the said student also lodged complaint against the petitioner with the police. The management issued show- cause notice dated 09.10.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.10.2014. The 1st respondent - Management not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner constituted Enquiry Committee by its order dated 08.02.2015. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report holding charge as approved. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice dated 20.07.2015 along with Enquiry Committee report. Petitioner gave his reply to the second show-cause notice dated 24.07.2015. The 1st respondent - Management by its order dated 30.11.2015 dismissed the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, on 30-04-2016 the petitioner herein filed appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal under Section 94 of the Act. Along with the appeal the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 60 days in preferring the appeal. The Tribunal issued notice to the 1st respondent - Management. The 1st respondent - Management on appearance filed its objection to the main petition as well as to the I.A. filed for condonation of delay of 60 days in preferring the appeal. The 1st respondent - Management contended that the explanation submitted by the petitioner would not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The petitioner examined himself as AW.1 and also examined AW.2, an Advocate on his behalf, in support of his application for condonation of delay.

(3.) The Tribunal under impugned order dated 08.07.2017 rejected I.A.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone 60 days delay and consequently dismissed the appeal, against which the petitioner is before this Court.