Shivanand Ukkali vs The President, Shri Balaji Banjara Vidya Vardhaka Sangh (r), Ainapur Tanda, Tq : and Dist. Bijapur, The Director of Secondary Education Office of the Commissioner for Public Instruction, Dharwad, The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bi japur and The Secretary, Sri. Balaji Banjara Vidya Vardhaka Sangh (r), Ainapur Tanda, Tq : and Dist : Bijapur

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 81015/2010 dated 29.3.2010 is called in question by the appellant herein.

Appellant was working as a Physical Education Teacher in R-1 institution. He remained absent unauthorizedly for more than three months. A summary enquiry was conducted by R-1 Appellant was dismissed from service by R-1. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached the tribunal. The tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of punishment and directed R-1 to re-instate the appellant with 50% back wages on the ground that enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of ''the tribunal, R-1 has filed the above writ petition.

Learned single Judge came to the conclusion that enquiry was not proper, therefore tribunal was justified in reversing the order of punishment and however awarding of back wages is also bad in law. According to the learned single Judge, when the tribunal has come to the conclusion that enquiry conducted by R-1 is in accordance with law, it was for the tribunal to direct R-1 to conduct an enquiry. In the circumstances, writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to R-1 to conduct enquiry in accordance with law based on the charge memo said to have been issued at the first instance on the appellant by R-1, challenging the same, present appeal is filed.

The main contention of the appellant before us is that no such charge memo was served on him. Therefore, learned single Judge has committed an error. But Mrs. Shivayogimath submits that after the orders are passed by the learned single Judge charge memo has been issued and enquiry has been conducted. She has produced copy of the enquiry report. We have perused the same. On perusal of the report of the enquiry committee, no court can hold that enquiry conducted by, R-1 is in accordance with law. Therefore, we have to hold that finding of the learned single Judge that a charge memo was issued prior to filing of writ petition is incorrect. Similarly, we have to hold that the enquiry conducted subsequent to the allowing of the writ petition is also bad in law. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of both the parties, appeal has to be allowed and, R-1 has to be directed to issue charge memo in accordance with law and conduct enquiry by following the principles of natural justice within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.

With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of.