SUBHASHINI EDUCATION TRUST Vs. B.S. MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The. Educational Institution and its Secretary have jointly preferred this petition, calling in question the order dated 25.8.2004 of the Principal District Judge, Kolar, for short 'Tribunal', in EAT No. 10/1993.

(2.) Respondent, when employed as a 'Lecturer' in the first petitioner/Education Trust with effect from 1.8.1983, was instructed to hold the post of 'Principal', as incharge, from 1.10.1991 to 16.7.1992. The first petitioner in its Meeting held on 23.12.1992 resolved that the second petitioner/Managing Trustee be the 'Disciplinary Authority', who, acting on the resolution dated 10.7.1992 of the first petitioner, issued a charge sheet, leveling six charges against the respondent. The reply dated 15.1.1993, when found not satisfactory led to the appointment of one M. Nagappa, Retired District & Sessions Judge, as One Man Enquiry Committee, to enquire into the charges. Domestic enquiry, when held, led to a report, following which a show cause notice dated 22.10.1993 was issued by the second petitioner enclosing a copy of the report, which was responded to by way of reply. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 25.11.1993 concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that charges 1, 2, 5 and 6 were proved and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. That order, when called in question in EAT No. 10/1993, the Principal District Judge at Kolar, framed 11 points for consideration and having regard to the material on record, returned findings, inter alia, confirming the proof over charge No. 1, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charges 2, 5 and 6, to conclude that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages, by the order impugned.

(3.) The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal was not justified in recording a finding that Charge No. 2 was not proved, is without merit. The Tribunal, having regard to the material on record, more appropriately, the undisputed facts that the Kannada Yuvajana Seva Sangha, KGF, conducted its coaching classes for High School students in the premises of the first petitioner/Education Institution under the very nose of the second petitioner/Secretary who had on many an occasion, participated in the functions conducted by the said Sangha, while several other Teachers also taught students in the coaching classes, without any remuneration, and further that Rs. 18,000/- collected from those students was deposited in a Bank for acquiring a property to conduct coaching classes for students, the Tribunal justifiably held that there was implied permission by the petitioners to the respondent to train students in the coaching classes. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the said reasons and conclusions.