- (1.) THE petitioner is questioning Annexure-Q. Pursuant to Annexure-Q the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement is handed to the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner during the course of his service with respondents 3 and 4 was saddled with two inquires, one inquiry resulted in the modification of the order by the appellate Tribunal and the other has resulted in a compulsory retirement. The backdrop of the case is that the petitioner possesses qualification of M.Sc in Physics. Having regard to his qualification he was appointed on 01.02.1976 in the Institution run by the third respondent. It is not in dispute that the institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner initially in the year 1984 on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 05.03.1983. He was not taking classes allotted to him regularly and failed to cover the portion prescribed in the syllabus while working as a lecturer in Science evening polytechnic, he borrowed monies from the students and public thus affecting the reputation of the institution thereby guilty of misconduct. While he was working with the institution, he has taken up another full time appointment in Mt. Carmel College, Bangalore. While working as a lecturer in the polytechnic he did not furnish correct address of the residence to avoid service of letter and notices and that he has made certain allegations against the then principal. A charge, memo was issued, reply was sought, given, an enquiry was conducted and a finding of guilt was handed. The disciplinary authority, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner. Terminated his service, which was subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. It is no necessary for us to go into the reasons given by the Tribunal while modifying the order, inasmuch as, the said order has been accepted by the institution. The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal and the order of dismissal from service with effect from 16.04.1984 was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated but however on certain conditions: one of them was that the petitioner will not be entitled for any benefits or salary or service conditions for the period between 05.03.1983 till reporting to duty. He was also directed to give an undertaking indicating that he shall not indulge in such activities of charges alleged and leveled as stated in SI. Nos. 1 to 6 in the memo dated 07.10.1983. An undertaking was also given to the effect that he shall not have any claim whatsoever on the benefits, salary or service conditions for the period from 05.03.1983 till reporting to duty. He also had no objection for the management making necessary entries in services register pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal. Another solemn undertaking was given that he shall not give any room or indulge in any unlawful activities and in violation of the code of conduct and the management would be at liberty to take any action in accordance with law in case of violation of the undertaking. The undertaking was given by the petitioner on 25th 1991. Notwithstanding such an undertaking given, the petitioner has once again indulged in certain activities which are certainly not expected of a Teacher, inasmuch as, cases were foisted against him for the offences punishable under section 420 of the IPC. It is not one but as many as 14 cases were foisted and during that relevant point of time he was detained in custody by Chamarajpet Police between 3rd August 1993 to 7th August 1993. Thus, he had remained absent during that period. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had indulged in criminal activities, thus violating the undertaking given by him on an earlier occasion, the respondents did not have any option, but to suspend him. The last of the criminal cases according to the petitioner ended in acquittal on 25.03.2006. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that out of 14 cases, in 6 cases, on the basis of a joint memo, offences were compounded under section 320(2)(8) of the Cr.P.C, in the remaining cases, the benefit of doubt was extended to the petitioner and thus he was acquitted. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, the respondents did not have any option, but to initiate proceedings and with reference to his conduct between 1983 and 1991 and his conduct thereafter in the year 1993 persuaded the respondents to award compulsory retirement to the petitioner having regard to Rule 10 Explanation 2(vi) of the Karnataka Private Education Institution (Discipline and Control), Rules 1978 (For short, "the Rules). Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that the impugned order at Annexure-Q would also indicate that taking into consideration that past and the present service records of the petitioner as well as the fact that he was attaining the age of superannuation in October 2006 and also in the larger interest of the Institution and to maintain discipline, retiring the petitioner compulsorily will not carry any stigma on his career. Further, on humanitarian grounds his salary and allowances for four months covering from July to October 2006 without any statutory deductions was paid to him. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court questioning Annexure-Q.
(3.) MR. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provision which was invoked for imposing the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement i.e., Rule 10 Explanation 2(vi) of the Rules was not applicable to the respondent, inasmuch as, the said rule was repealed. Hence the respondent did not have any power to compulsorily retire the petitioner. He further submits that under section 92 of the Education Act, 1983 (for short, "the Act") the maximum period of suspension is only six months and any further suspension requires authorization. That having not been done, the suspension was also bad. Mr. Satyanarayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3 to 5 submits that having regard to the misconduct of the petitioner, on two different occasions within a span of 10 years, the management did not have any option, but to retire him compulsorily. Indeed, he submits that specific care is taken by the Management to see that by such compulsory retirement, no stigma is attached and he has been given the entire salary including the allowances without any deductions for a period of four months i.e., form the date, the last of the criminal cases ended in an acquittal till October 2006.;