MARATHA MANDAL Vs. CHANDRAKANT BABURAO KADAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Maratha Mandal, Belgaum has challenged the legal validity of the order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Belgaum, whereby the learned Tribunal has concluded that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner 's Management was unfair and improper. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order dated 21.04.2001 passed by the petitioner Management, and has directed the petitioner Management to pay arrears of salary to respondent No. 1 for the period from April 1999 upto the date on which the respondent attained the age of superannuation. It further directed the petitioner Management to pay his retirement benefits as per law within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the petitioner Management shall be liable to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of default till payment.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 1, Chandrakant Baburao Kadam, joined the service of the petitioner Management as Principal of Maratha Mandal 's Arts and Commerce College, Khanapur in the year 1985. During the year 1998 -99, supplementary examinations of the Karnataka University were held in the months of October and November, 1998. Although the respondent was not in -charge of the supplementary examinations work during the said period, on 17.12.1998 a news item appeared in the local daily ''Kannadamma '' regarding malpractice in the supplementary examinations held at the college where the respondent was the Principal. On the basis of the said news item, on 03.05.1999, the Management served a charge sheet on the respondent No. 1. According to the charge -sheet, there were five charges framed against the respondent No. 1 as under:

(3.) THE petitioner refuted the allegations made in the charge -sheet. However, as the Management did not accept his explanation, by order dated 25.03.1999, the Management appointed an Enquiry Officer. After holding a thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.07.2000. According to the Enquiry Officer, while charge Nos. 1 and 2 were proved, charge No. 3 was not proved, and charge No. 4 was only partly proved against the respondent.