B M S EDUCATION TRUST Vs. EDUCATION APP TRIBUNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The alove writ petition coming up for orders on the application made by the second respondent for vacating stay, by consent of counsel has been taken up for final disposal as the petitiones counsel insisted upon a final hearing rather than an order on I.A. No. 1. Therefore, the following Order: This writ petition is filed by B-M-S. Educational Trust and by the Principal of B.M.S. College for Women challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the first respondent Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangaiore. The order of the Tribunal in question is impugned mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and secondly on the ground that even if it had the jurisdiction the appeal was barreu by time prescribed under S. 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to the present petition may be summarised as follows: Second respondent is an employee (under suspension) of the 2nd petitioner College, it is neither pleaded nor claritied by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to which of the two petitioners is the appointing authority in so far as the second respondent is concerned. However, it is conceded by Sri K. N. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are governed by Karnataka Civil Services Rules in so far as it relates to the matter of conditions of service while in the employment of the petitioners. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent. It has been the case of both the, petitioners and respondents that their service conditions are governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, even before the first respondent Tribunal.

(2.) On account of certain discoveries made by the second petitioner Principal by a memo issued on 31-3-1971), the second respondent was kept under suspension pending enquiry. No enquiry as such has commenced against the petitioner up to this date. After the suspension order was passed (a true copy is produced by the second respondent at Annexure-I to his statement of objections), the second respondent made repeated representations to the second petitioner as also to the first petitioner and thereafter to the Dirctor of Collegiate Education, but with no success. The representations related to payment of subsistence allowance pending enquiry under rule 98 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) That the second respondent has not been paid subsistence allowance at all is admitted and also evidenced by annexure-3 to the statement of objections, which is a reply sent by the second petitiner though his counsel to tthe second respondent on the written representation made demanding payment of subsistence allowance on 14-3-1978. In the said Ex. "C" the reply by the counsel on behalf of the second responded jit is clearly stated that on account of certain criminal cases pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against the second respondent, he was not entitled to subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by the reply of the counsel as above, the patitioner under S. 8(1) of the Act filed an appeal inter alia, praying for a direction to the petitioners to pay the subsistence allowance for the period of suspansion.

(3.) It is apparent from the impugned order or the Tribunal that substantially the same grounds which have been urged before this Court were also urged before the Tribunal.