MARATHA MANDAL, BELGAUM vs SRI CHANDRAKANT BABURAO KADAM

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 103757 OF 2025 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

MARATHA MANDAL, BELGAUM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI NATHAJIRAO G. HALGEKAR
OPP. PARADE GROUND 1007,
M.M. EXTENSION, BELGAUM-590002.
…PETITIONER




(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI CHANDRAKANT BABURAO KADAM
AGE. 74 YEARS,
TH
R/O. SHIVAM, 5 CROSS,
ADARSH NAGAR, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590002.


2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
DHARWAD-580001.

3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

4. COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS



Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED BY
THE IX ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND AMACT
BELAGAVI IN EAT APPEAL NO.3/2001 IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE–V
AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER



1. This is the third round of writ petition by the management
solely for the reason that the earlier specific directions
issued by this Court on two occasions have not been either
understood or followed by the Educational Appellate
Tribunal.

2. Dispute pertains to disciplinary action initiated against the
respondent No.1, who was working as Principal of
petitioner-institution resulting in his dismissal from service
vide order dated 21.04.2001. The said order of dismissal
was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the
Education Appellate Tribunal. An appeal filed by the
respondent No.1 under Section 94 against the order of
dismissal was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2010 setting
aside the order of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner-Institution had filed Writ Petition in
WP.No.66209/2010 which was allowed by order dated
17.11.2005 remanding the matter to the tribunal with
following specific directions:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


“For the reasons stated above, this petition is
hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 26.06.2010
and 28.07.2010 are set aside. The case is remanded
back to the learned Tribunal for its fresh decision on
the entire controversy with regard to punishment
dated 21.04.2001”.


3. Upon such remand, respondent-Workman had filed an
application seeking permission to record further evidence
in the nature of recalling R.W.2 for further cross
examination which was allowed by order dated 7.09.2017.
being aggrieved by the same, another writ petition came
to be filed by the management in W.P.No.109574/2017 in
which this Court referring to the aforesaid order passed in
Writ Petition No.66209/2010 issued specific clarification at
paragraphs 7 to 15 of the said writ petition order read as
under:
“7. The issue with regard to the fairness and
proprietary of the domestic enquiry conducted by the
petitioner-Management before issuance of order of
dismissal dated 21.04.2001 was raised by the
respondent-workman before the Educational
Appellate Tribunal under Section 94 of the Act. Upon
consideration of this ground urged therein,
preliminary issue with regard to fairness and
proprietary of the enquiry was framed. Evidence was
adduced. The Tribunal taking into consideration of
the fact that subsistence allowance was not paid to
the respondent-workman, came to the conclusion
that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


Accordingly set aside the order of dismissal dated
21.04.2001.
8. When a challenge was mounted by the
petitioner-Management in the writ petition
No.66209/2010 before this Court, this Court while
accepting the contention of the petitioner-
Management, at paragraph 13 has categorically held
that non-payment of subsistence allowance in the
absence of plea of prejudice would not render
domestic enquiry invalid and hence on this ground,
set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The
order of remand reads as under:
“For the reasons stated above, this petition is
hereby allowed. Impugned order dated
26.06.2010 and 28.07.2010 are set aside. The
case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for
its fresh decision on the entire controversy with
regard to punishment dated 21.04.2001”.
9. The tenor of this order indicate that the
remand was for consideration of “entire controversy
with regard to punishment order dated 21.04.2001”.
It has to be read as such in view of the reasoning
assigned by this Court for setting aside the earlier
order of the Tribunal upholding the enquiry
conducted by the Management to be fair and proper.
10. This Court do not see any controversy, as
being urged by the parties, in the order passed by
the Tribunal because the Tribunal itself appears to be
conscious of the this limited direction of remand
made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated
17.11.2015, even as could be seen in the reasoning
assigned in the impugned order, wherein, the
Tribunal has observed as under:
“In an appeal by the Management in writ
petition No.66209/2010, the matter remanded
to this Tribunal for its fresh decision on the
entire controversy with regard to punishment
order dated 21.04.2001. Such being the case,
it is necessary to go on with the matter at the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


stage of further cross examination of RW2 for
limited scope”. Thus, this Court do not see any
justifiable ground to interfere with the order.
(underlining is made by this Court)
11. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner urges
that a clarification be made that cross-examination of
RW2 be restricted only to the extent of evidence, if
any available on record, pertaining to issue of
proportionality of punishment and not with regard to
the proprietary or otherwise of the domestic enquiry.
12. Counsel for the respondent also has no qualms
about the said submissions.
13. Submission taken on record.
14. It is thus clarified that cross-examination of
RW2 shall be restricted only to the extent of
considering the controversy of imposition of
punishment as directed by this Court in its earlier
order referred to above and nothing more.
15. Needless to state, in view of the powers
available under Section 96 of the Act, the Tribunal
may permit the respondent-workman to lead
evidence /additional evidence, if adviced.”

4. Thus, despite the aforesaid categorical clarification, the
Tribunal has yet again committed the same error of
reopening the entire case not addressing the core issue
which was pointedly clarified by this Court in the aforesaid
order, namely, consideration of, controversy of imposition
of punishment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a written
submission was also filed before the Tribunal specifically

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


pointing out the scope of remand, yet the Tribunal has not
taken the same into consideration.

6. Perusal of the impugned order in the background of the
aforesaid repeated remand indicate except the aforesaid
specific point of remand everything else is discussed. In
other words the question whether imposition of
punishment on the respondent was disproportionate or
not, was essentially required to be considered and there is
no whisper in the impugned order regarding the same.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the
said issue has not at all been addressed in the impugned
order. Therefore he requests for one more opportunity to
be given for respondent to advance his case before the
Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. He further submits
though the respondent had suffered order of dismissal
from his service, he is now retired and would be entitled
for post-retirement benefits, including the pension to be
fixed by the respondent-State. That if an opportunity is
not granted to him, and the order of dismissal is confirmed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


and that the same would cause severe hardship and
prejudice to him.

8. Under the aforesaid circumstances learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as respondent submits that this time
they will ensure that the learned Tribunal is specifically
apprised of the scope of remand.

9. Submission placed on record.

10. Accordingly, following:
allowed
(i) Petition is .
(ii) Impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by
the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and
AMACT, Belagavi in EAT APPEAL NO.3/2001 is
quashed.
(iii) Matter is remitted to the Tribunal, which shall
bear in mind that this remand is only to the
extent of examining the aspect of controversy
regarding proportionality of punishment and
shall not reopen the issue regarding whether
the enquiry conducted by the management
was fair and proper.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16792
WP No. 103757 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020091322025


(iv) Such determination will be made within 60
days from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.





Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SBN
CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29