The Managing Committee, Sri. Durgaparameshwari High School and Others vs Shankar Shettigar and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ''B'' Group, are considered for final disposal and are disposed of by this common order.

The petitioner in the first of the petitions namely W.P. 25231/2015 is the Management of Sri. Durgaparameshwari High School and the first respondent was an attender in the petitioner institution. On account of his dereliction of duty and lack of devotion to work, he was repeatedly issued show cause notices and called upon to attend an enquiry, in respect of which they had appointed an Enquiry Officer to go into the misconduct on the part of the attender. It is alleged that in spite of repeated notices, the respondent had failed to comply and had refused to attend the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to address the charges and had held that the same were proved and by the enquiry report, had recommended his removal from service. The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the Enquiry Officer''s report and had dismissed him from service by way of compulsory retirement. The same was challenged before the Educational Appellate Tribunal (EAT) and after contest, the Tribunal has held that the enquiry held was not fair and proper and has directed that petitioner-Management to hold a fresh enquiry. It is that which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

The connected writ petition W.P. 24205/2015 has been filed by the respondent who is said to be the attender, claiming that in spite of the direction of the Tribunal, the Management has failed to hold an enquiry and the said direction to the Management to expedite holding of an enquiry is not as yet complied with, and he pleads that his case be considered expeditiously, as he is fast reaching his age of superannuation.

In that background, though the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management would very strongly urge that the enquiry held was fair and proper and the Tribunal has erroneously held otherwise and would seek to take the court through the record to demonstrate that it is only the respondent who has failed to co-operate in holding the enquiry and there was no lapse on the part of the Management in proceeding in accordance with law. However, given that the findings of the Tribunal that the enquiry not being fair and proper, it would save time and effort if the petitioner-Management should forthwith hold an enquiry and complete the same with expedition. In any event, the petitioner-Management shall now issue a fresh notice of enquiry on the charges made against the respondent and give him full opportunity to contest the same and thereafter, the enquiry shall proceed, in accordance with law.

With that observation, the petitions stand disposed of.

The enquiry shall be held and completed within a period of six months, if not earlier and the respondent shall fully co-operate in the holding of the enquiry. If he should repeat his earlier conduct of failing to respond to the notice, the Management cannot be blamed in that regard.