SHIVANAND S/O IRAPPA UKKALI Vs. THE PRESIDENT, SHRI BALAJI BANJARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 81015/2010 dated 29.3.2010 is called in question by the appellant herein.

(2.) APPELLANT was working as a Physical Education Teacher in R -1 institution. He remained absent unauthorizedly for more than three months. A summary enquiry was conducted by R -1 Appellant was dismissed from service by R -1. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached the tribunal. The tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of punishment and directed R -1 to re -instate the appellant with 50% back wages on the ground that enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of 'the tribunal, R -1 has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) THE main contention of the appellant before us is that no such charge memo was served on him. Therefore, learned single Judge has committed an error. But Mrs. Shivayogimath submits that after the orders are passed by the learned single Judge charge memo has been issued and enquiry has been conducted. She has produced copy of the enquiry report. We have perused the same. On perusal of the report of the enquiry committee, no court can hold that enquiry conducted by, R -1 is in accordance with law. Therefore, we have to hold that finding of the learned single Judge that a charge memo was issued prior to filing of writ petition is incorrect. Similarly, we have to hold that the enquiry conducted subsequent to the allowing of the writ petition is also bad in law. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of both the parties, appeal has to be allowed and, R -1 has to be directed to issue charge memo in accordance with law and conduct enquiry by following the principles of natural justice within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.