AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—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, 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.
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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, provision of Rule 34(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'' for short) is unconstitutional in contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2004)8 SCC 224 and consequentially the present impugned order Annexure-W is liable to be quashed. It is submitted, the interference of the Government under Rule 34(1) of the Rules is unconstitutional. Merely because the institutions are brought under Grant-in-Aid, does not enable the Government to interfere in its day today administration. In Support of his submission, the learned counsel referred the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above.
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.
I have heard both.
From the materials placed by the petitioner, it is seen that suspension of the 4th respondent and not paying subsistence allowance was the subject matter before the government and also before this Court in writ petition and writ appeal. The statutory authorities and also this Court have held against the petitioner by holding that the suspension of an employee without compliance of Rule 34(1) of the Rules is ultra vires. Non payment of subsistence allowance is violation of constitutional right as well as also right to life of a person. Driving a person by keeping under suspension without paying subsistence allowance is violation of human rights and also violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Despite the fact that on more than one occasion, the action of the ''petitioner has been condemned, even thereafter, making an attempt to approach this Court by using clandestine method is contrary to all canons of law, nothing but abuse of judicial process. In the backdrop of these circumstances,. I am of the view that this is not a fit case to examine the validity of Rule 34(1) of the Rules and its constitutional validity. This would have been examined if the petitioner had complied the orders passed by the statutory authority as well as the order passed in Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and also in SLP. Virtually the attempt made by the petitioner is to go against the spirit of the judgments.
In the circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner has to be rejected and accordingly the writ petition is rejected with a cost of Rs. 5000/-. The validity of the Rules 34(1) of the Rules cannot be examined in the instant case and accordingly the said prayer is not considered for the time being. The connected petition WP No. 45163/2012 (S) which is filed by the Management seeking release of salary of the teaching staff in respect of First Grade College, KGF run by the petitioner Trust for the months of September & October, 2012 and WP No. 47963/2012 which is filed by the petitioner who is an Associate Professor seeking release of salary of teaching staff of first Grade College, KGF for the month of October, 2012 are hereby allowed directing release of the salary of the teaching staff for the aforesaid months, if it is not released already.