S.G.V.G. VIDYA VARDHAK P. TRUST BY ITS CHAIRMAN, M.G.V.C. ARTS, COMMERCE AND SCIENCE COLLEGE AND PRINCIPAL, M.G.V.C. ARTS COLLEGE Vs. GANGAPPA, JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AND COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION FOR DEGREE COLLEGES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE intra Court Appeals by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 82360 -82362/2011 is filed, challenging the order dated 28.08.2013 dismissing the petitions. The first appellant Trust manages the second appellant educational institution being an Arts, Commerce and Science college, while the third appellant is the Principal of the said college. First respondent when employed as a First Division Clerk in the second appellant educational institution, a Typist by name S.M. Banoshi complained that on 17.09.2002 at about 10.30 A.M. the first respondent assaulted the complainant. The management placed the first respondent under suspension which when called in question in an appeal before the Joint Director of Collegiate Education on 22 03.2003 invoking Section 94(5) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short the 'Act'), the appeal was rejected by order dated 19 12.2003, as premature. That order when subject matter of a further appeal under sub -section (7) of Section 94 of the Act registered as EAT No. 1/2004 before the Education Appellate Tribunal, Raichur (for short the 'EAT'), was disposed of on 15.02.2005 observing that an employee cannot be placed under suspension beyond six months. The domestic enquiry held into the allegations of misconduct lead to a report recording a finding that the misconduct was proved. The Disciplinary Authority on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record held the first respondent guilty of the charges and accordingly by order dated 21.10.2005 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. That order was called in question in an appeal invoking Section 94(7) of the Act before the EAT, registered as EAT No. 2/2005. In that proceeding the appellants arraigned as respondents having filed I.A. No. 2 asserting that the EAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in the absence of the Government being arraigned a party respondent, was rejected by order dated 06.07.2009. The EAT having framed a preliminary issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry, answered the issue in the negative by order dated 29.06.2010 holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and permitted the parties to lead evidence in proof of the charges.

(2.) FIRST respondent was examined as PW -1 and introduced 10 documents, marked as Exs. P1 to P10, while the appellants recalled R.W. -2 (examined over the preliminary issue) and further examined him and introduced in evidence, documents marked as Exs. R14 to R22.

(3.) APPELLANTS filed W.P. Nos. 82360 -82362/2011 calling in question the order of the EAT while first respondent filed W.P. No. 100014/2013 calling in question the very same order of the EAT in so far as it relates to denial of 50% of back wages. The learned Single Judge clubbed the writ petitions and by common order dated 28.08.2013 dismissed the writ petitions.