AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order dated 17th January 2013 in Writ Petition No. 20411/2004 is called in question in this writ appeal.
The records reveal that the respondent herein is an employee working under the appellant; based on certain allegations, two show cause notices were issued against the respondent and domestic enquiry was held by the Management; in the domestic enquiry, it was concluded that the respondent is guilty of the misconduct; the disciplinary authority/appellant herein considering the material on record and the enquiry report dismissed the respondent from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent/employee approached the Education Appellate Tribunal in E.A.T. (K.P.E.I.) Appeal No. 3/1994. The Education Appellate Tribunal (''E.A.T. for short) by the order dated 4th March 2004 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the appellant with liberty to hold fresh enquiry from certain stage. The order of the E.A.T. is confirmed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20411/2004 by the impugned order.
Sri Jagadish Patil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant institution submits that the appellant is not a private educational institution and therefore it was not open for the E.A.T. to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the matter on hand. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal on merits is bad in the eye of law inasmuch as the show cause notices issued could have been treated as definite charges framed against the respondent-employee.
Per contra, Sri Chetan T. Limbikai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued in support of the order of the learned Single Judge in writ petition.
The question as to whether the appellant is a private educational institution or not is no more res integra inasmuch as the said question is decided as far back as on 2.9.1974 in Writ Petition No. 1384/1974 by this Court. In the said judgment, this Court has concluded that the appellant is a private educational institution. Even otherwise, we find from the material on record that the appellant institution is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. Though it has received and is receiving certain grants from the Central Government as well as the State Government, the characteristics of the private educational institution is not changed. In view of the same, we are of the clear opinion that the appellant institution is a private educational institution within the meaning of Section 2(27) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
Even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the E.A.T. It is no doubt true that two show cause notices are served by the appellant institution on the respondent. However definite charge memo is neither issued nor served on the delinquent employee. It is mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to frame definite charges for the purpose of conducting enquiry against an employee so as to enable the employee to know the exact imputation made against him so that he can defend himself effectively.
In view of the above, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge are justified in concluding that the enquiry held is bad in the eye of law. Hence no interference is called for.
Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.