LAWS(KAR)-2018-5-179

PHALAHARA SHIVAYOGESHWARA SHIKSHANA SAMITHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On May 30, 2018
Phalahara Shivayogeshwara Shikshana Samithi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is listed for preliminary hearing in B group. The State has filed I.A. 1 of 2018 seeking vacating of interim order of stay granted by this Court on 16.11.2017. While considering the said application, with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner is stated to be an educational institution registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, as it applied in the State of Karnataka. That it has been running several schools and colleges for providing education to rural students and to the poor and needy children. According to the petitioner, it is running three High Schools, two Pre-University colleges and four Primary schools and several other training institutes and colleges. Petitioner is stated to be running free boarding and Hostels at Manihal, Sureban and Ramdurg for poor rural students.

(3.) That respondent No.4 was appointed as a lecturer in Geography in the year 1983 in the petitioner college which is a Pre-University College. When the post of Principal fell vacant, respondent No.4 was appointed as a Principal in the year 1992. It appears that while discharging his duties as a Principal of the college, he had misappropriated certain funds of the college and was acting against the interest of the Management. On coming to know about these facts, petitioner issued show cause notice and after hearing respondent No.4, imposed a minor punishment by withholding one increment permanently as per order dated 25.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.01.2002, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3-DDPU, Belagavi, requesting the Management to release the increment as per his letter dated 13.02.2002. The petitioner-Management requested respondent No.4 to furnish the service register by issuing notices to him. But according to petitioner, respondent No.4 did not furnish the service register.