LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-173

VENKATESH S. Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE MOUNT CARMEL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, THE PRINCIPAL, MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATA

Decided On September 25, 2013
Venkatesh S. Appellant
V/S
Managing Committee Of The Mount Carmel Educational Society, The Principal, Mount Carmel College, The Joint Director Of Collegiate Education, Government Of Karnataka And The Director Of Collegiate Education, Government Of Karnata Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who was working as a Second Division Assistant, was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was held. He was dismissed from service. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. Aggrieved by it, he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein by the impugned order, respondent No. 1 -Management was directed to reinstate him to the post which he was working within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, while holding that he was entitled to 50% back wages. Seeking complete back wages, the present petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not gainfully employed and that in view of the facts involved, he is entitled for 100% back wages.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent defends the impugned order. That the Tribunal has been extremely lenient in granting back wages. On the contrary, the petitioner is not even entitled to any back wage. However, the said order has not been challenged by him.

(3.) ON considering the contentions as well as the reasoning of the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that there is no error that calls for interference. Keeping in mind the charges, the age of the appellant and in the absence of any material to show that he was gainfully employed, 50% of the backwages is awarded. Under these circumstances, I'am of the considered view that the petitioner would not be entitled to 100% backwages as claimed. In the fitness of things and the available material, the grant of backwages is appropriate. I'am of the considered view that the grant of backwages @ 50% is a liberal order granted to the appellant. I do not find any error that calls for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule discharged.