Karnataka HC Quashes Tribunal Order, Sends College Principal’s Dismissal Appeal Back To Decide Whether Punishment Was Disproportionate

The petitioner-management dismissed respondent No. 1, its former Principal, by an order dated 21 April 2001. Respondent No. 1 appealed under Section 94 of the Act, and the Educational Appellate Tribunal set aside the dismissal.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the controversy concerning the punishment.

In a subsequent writ petition, the High Court clarified that further cross-examination of RW-2 was to be confined to the issue of punishment, while leaving the Tribunal’s powers under Section 96 to permit additional evidence intact.

The Tribunal’s order dated 27 February 2025 nevertheless did not address whether the punishment was disproportionate. The management challenged that order in this third writ petition.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may review a Tribunal’s order and require compliance with its remand directions.

A Tribunal must act within the scope of the remand and give effect to any clarification issued by the High Court.

In this case, Section 94 of the Act was the basis of the employee’s appeal, and Section 96 was noted as permitting the Tribunal to allow additional evidence.

The earlier directions confined the remanded consideration to the controversy concerning punishment; the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry were not to be reopened.

The earlier remand and subsequent clarification required the Tribunal to consider the punishment imposed, including whether it was disproportionate, without reopening the question of whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.

The impugned order discussed other matters but contained no consideration of proportionality, an omission acknowledged by the employee’s counsel.

The High Court therefore found that the Tribunal had not followed the limited scope of remand and that a fresh determination on proportionality was required.

It remitted the matter to the Tribunal solely to determine the issue of proportionality of punishment, expressly directing it not to reopen the fairness or propriety of the domestic enquiry.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.