GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST KGF FIRST GRADE COLLEGE Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AND SRI. C. MADANGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made by the petitioner in WP No. 42362/2012 is to quash the order dated 25.8.2012 (Annexure -W) and also to quash Rule 34(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 as unconstitutional. The petitioner referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, 2004 (5) SCALE 794 for challenging Rule 34(1) of the above Rules. The 4th respondent who was working as a lecturer in the petitioner's institution was kept under suspension on 3.10.2001. The suspension order followed by Article of charges dated 3.8.2003. Both suspension order and article of charges have been challenged before the statutory authority in Review Petition No. 48/2003 and the said petition came to be allowed in which suspension order and disciplinary enquiry initiated by the petitioner was set aside and there was a direction to the petitioner to pay the back wages.

(2.) THE order passed by the review authority dated 15.11.2006 was challenged before this Court in WP No. 17153/2006 and the writ petition was rejected on 14.3.2008 and again the petitioner herein preferred WA No. 731/2008 which was also dismissed on 15.1.2009 by confirming the order passed in the writ petition. The dismissal of writ appeal has been challenged in SLP No. CC. 15041/2009. The said petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even thereafter since the appellant failed to comply the order of reviewing authority as well as the order in writ petition, contempt was filed in CCC No. 549/2010 which was dropped on the submissions made by the petitioner. Now the respondent has issued the present order dated 25.8.2.012 in which the Government directed the Commissioner of Public Instructions to take appropriate action against the petitioner under the grant -in -aid Code and under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act. Hence this petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it is submitted to dismiss this petition. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the act on the part of the petitioner in instituting this writ petition, is nothing but abuse of judicial process. When the impugned action of the petitioner has been condemned by the Reviewing Authority, writ petition, writ appeal and ultimately by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, approaching this Court once again in challenging the suspension order by incidentally challenging Rule 34(1) of the Rules, is nothing but abuse of judicial process. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.