Karnataka HC says teacher’s challenge is premature while disciplinary authority considers reply after Class 9 student gives birth in hostel

The petitioner, a Science Teacher, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings following the delivery of a child by a ninth-standard student in the school hostel on 27 August 2025.

The petitioner had been the class teacher for the relevant class for three months, and the proceedings against him concerned his alleged failure to report the student’s absence.

The enquiry report found Charge No. 5 proved, and the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice.

After submitting his reply, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, seeking to quash the finding on Charge No. 5 and the notice.

The disciplinary authority had not yet made a final decision

1. Whether the petitioner could challenge the enquiry report and second show-cause notice before the disciplinary authority made a final decision

2. Whether the petitioner’s claims that he had no nexus with the incident and that the proceedings amounted to victimisation could be considered at that stage

The Court applied the procedural principle that a challenge to disciplinary proceedings at the enquiry-report and second-show-cause-notice stage is premature where the employee has submitted a reply and the disciplinary authority has yet to decide the matter.

The authority must consider the reply and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law; an adverse final order may then be challenged.

Although the petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court cited no statute or precedent in support of this principle

The petitioner had already responded to the second show-cause notice, but the disciplinary authority had not taken a final decision.

The Court therefore declined to assess the petitioner’s objections to the charge or his allegation of victimisation at that stage.

It directed no particular outcome on the merits, leaving the authority to consider the reply and decide the matter in accordance with law

It disposed of the petition with the observation that, if the disciplinary authority passed an adverse order after considering the petitioner’s reply, he could challenge that order in accordance with law.