Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF C.S.T..EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION &
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
A. RAGHUPATHY BHAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Karnataka High Court, made on 18.4.1996 in C.R.P. Nos.
934/93 and 2362/93 and the order dated 5.8.1996 in C.P. Nos.
365 and 366 of 1996.
The admitted position is that the respondent was
suspended from service on 18.3.1989. Domestic enquiry was
conducted and the order of removal was passed. A petition
was filed by the respondent against the said order before
the Tribunal constituted under Karnataka Education At, 1983.
The Tribunal on finding that the respondent was not paid the
subsistence allowance, set aside the order of termination
and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry. In revision, the
High Court stayed the domestic enquiry and the civil
petition was allowed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of
this matter. Rules 12(3) and 12(4) of the Rules framed under
Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline &
Control) Act, provide that in a case where a penalty of
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service
imposed upon an employee is set aside in an appeal or on
review under these Rules and the case is remitted for
further inquiry or action or with any other direction or
under Rules 12(4) of the Rules is rendered void in
consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the
disciplinary authority on consideration of the circumstances
of the case, decides to hold further enquiry against him on
the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the
employee shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the
original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension
until further orders. Thus, it can be seen that the Rules
provide for further enquiry to be conducted by the
disciplinary authority. It is settled law that the employee
has power to conduct enquiry afresh from the stage at which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the illegality in the proceedings is found vitiating the
action. The High Court is, therefore, not right in
foreclosing further enquiry after upholding the order of the
Tribunal which has held that there is need for further
enquiry and the order of removal was set aside because of
non-payment of subsistence allowance. The question whether
the order of removal was bad in law for non-payment of
subsistence allowance is left open, as it has not been
canvassed. The disciplinary authority’s proceeding further,
as a consequence of remittance of the order, is clearly
adumbrated under Rules 12(3) or Rule 12(4), as the case may
be. It is now well settled by a Constitution Bench decision
of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors.
vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727] that as a
consequence of setting aside of order or termination or
removal or dismissal further enquiry is required to be
undertaken from that stage. Pending enquiry, the employee
must be deemed to be under suspension. Under these
circumstances, the High Court was not right in foreclosing
the further enquiry. The appellants are directed to continue
and complete the enquiry within a period of four months from
today and until the final order, the respondent must be
deemed to be under suspension.
We are informed that the respondent has been paid a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only), pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court. The said payment will
be subject to the result of the enquiry and final order and
must be adjusted, as a consequence of the order of the
enquiry report towards subsistence allowance or otherwise.