AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.—Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 48123/2004 (S-RES), the appellants have preferred the above writ appeal.
The first respondent was appointed as teacher on 1.6.1986 in the first appellant-institution and the same was approved by the Government Authority on a condition that he should undergo two years teachers'' training course. In the meantime, the first appellant, based on the alleged voluntary resignation letter said to have been offered by the first respondent-teacher on 10.6.1996, removed him from service, necessitating the first respondent to approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur, constituted for the purpose of disposing of the appeals filed u/s 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Tribunal found that the management has not complied with Sections 93 and 97 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rule 9 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 and therefore, it allowed the appeal of the first respondent ordering to reinstate the first respondent into service with full back wages. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein approached this Court in W.P.48123/2004. The learned Single Judge, under the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the petition modifying the order of the Tribunal by reducing the backwages to 50% and confirming rest of the portion of order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
Heard Mr. Vighneshwar S. Shastry, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. C. Nagarajachary, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Basavaraja Kareddy, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 2.
4.1 At the outset, it is relevant to quote Sections 93 and 97 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ''the Act'') and Rule 9 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (for short ''the Rules'').
4.2 Section 93 of the Act reads as follows:
Communication of order:(1) Every order of the Managing Committee imposing any penalty or otherwise affecting the conditions of service of an employee to his prejudice, shall be communicated to the employee in the prescribed manner.
(2) No order which has not been communicated in accordance with Sub-section (1) shall be valid or be of any effect whatsoever.
4.3 Section 97 of the Act reads as follows:
Resignationr(1) Any employee of a private educational institution may resign from his service by giving a notice to the Governing Council in accordance with the sub-Section(2).
(2) Every such notice of Resignation shall:
(a) conform to the terms and conditions of service governing such employee; and
(b) be in the prescribed form attested by an officer duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government.
(3) No resignation which is not in accordance with Sub-section (2) shall be valid or be of any effect whatsoever.
4.4 Rule 9 of the Rules reads as follows:
Termination and Resignation: (1) The services of an employee employed for a specified period not exceeding three months or a part-time employee employed for a specified period less than a year on probation for a specified period may be terminated at the end of the specified period without assigning any reasons.
(2) Any employee appointed under Rule 6(1) may resign from service by giving one month''s notice in writing to the Appointing Authority or one month''s salary in lieu thereof. A copy of such notice shall be sent to the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department or a person authorised by him shall call the employee to appear before him for verifying the contents of the resignation notice and shall forward it to the Appointing Authority for acceptance, if the resignation is found to be voluntary, the Appointing Authority shall not accept the resignation until the notice is forwarded to it by the Head of the Department.
It is not in dispute that the appellant-management had not communicated the order which was prejudicial to the first respondent-employee as contemplated u/s 93 of the Act and therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, same cannot be held to be valid or given effect to. Similarly, the resignation alleged to have been given by the first respondent suffers from infirmity as per Section 97 of the Act as found by the learned Single Judge and the Tribunal. More so, Rule 9(2) of the Rules, which contemplates that a copy of the notice of resignation should be forwarded to the Head of the Department or a person authorised by him, who shall on receipt of such notice, call the employee to appear before him for verifying the contents of the resignation notice and forward the same to appointing authority viz., the appellant-management for acceptance if the resignation is found to be voluntary, has also not been complied with. As a result, the voluntary resignation alleged to have been given by the 1st respondent/teacher to the Management cannot be acted upon in view of the gross violation of Sections 93 and 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rule 9(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978.
At this juncture, Mr. Vighneshwar S. Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-management seeks our intervention to reduce the backwages.
In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has passed a well-considered order by reducing the backwages to 50%.
Thus, the same does not warrant our interference.
The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.