Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 324 (KAR)

Sri Eramallappa v. State of Karnataka

2009-04-24

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2009
Judgment : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Hindi teacher by Sri Srinivasa Education Trust, Gubbi, Tumkur District and posted him at its school ‘Sri Srinivasa H.P.S.’ Gubbi, Tumkur District, vide appointment order at Annexure-A dated 20.10.1987. The said appointment was approved by the Competent Authority as per Annexure-B order dated 2.11.1987. The post in question was admitted to salary grant ‘as per the order at Annexure-C1 dated 16.11.1992. The petitioner was granted annual increments as per the order at Annexure-C2, dated 16.11.1992 and he was also granted time bound increment as per Annexure-D order dated 16.9.2003. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Tumkur, (4th respondent herein) cancelled the order admitting the post in question to salary grant as per Annexure-P3 order dated 30.1.1997. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 1364/01. This Court by its order dated 23.3.2005 remanded the matter back to the concerned DDPI with a direction to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. It is also relevant to notice here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was paid the salary from 1997 to 2001 as per the order at Annexure-G1 dated 33.3.2001 and again his salary paid till March 2005 as per the order at Annexure-G2. The DDPI had also sought permission of the Director to continue the petitioner in service. After remand, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice calling upon him as to why the salary grant to the post in question should not be withdrawn. The said show-cause notice on 28.11.2006. The DDPI has passed on order at Annexure-M dated 23.3.2007 withdrawing the salary grant to the said post. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the said order in this writ petition. 2. Sri Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post in question as per the order at Annexure-A, dated 20.10.1987 and his appointment was approved by the Competent Authority as per the order at Annexure-B, dated 2.11.1987. The post in question was admitted to salary grant as per the order at Annexure-C and he was granted annual increments and time bound increments from time to time. The post in question was admitted to salary grant as per the order at Annexure-C and he was granted annual increments and time bound increments from time to time. On an earlier occasion when the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Tumkur, unilaterally withdrew the salary grant to the post in question, petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.1364/2001 and this Court directed the DDPI to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed objections to the show-cause notice issued by the DDPI, Tumkur (4th respondent herein). The DDPI without considering the objections has passed the impugned order. It is argued that the impugned order is unilateral in nature and that no reasons have been assigned by the 4th respondent for withdrawing the salary grant to the post in question. 3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons assigned by the DDPI, Tumkur for withdrawing the post in question from the salary grant are, (i) the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1364/01 filed by the petitioner is in favour of the department and (ii) the reply filed by the respondent is not satisfactory. As noticed above this Court in W.P.No.1364/01 has found fault with the order passed by the DDPI dated 30.1.1997 and has directed the DDPI to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon. The petitioner has sent a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. The DDPI has rejected the reply holding that it is not satisfactory. I am of the view that the 4th respondent has passed a non-speaking order without application of mind. 5. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The order at Annexure-M 23.3.2007 is hereby quashed only insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. It is needless to say that pending disposal of the writ petition, the department is bound to pay the salary to the petitioner. No costs.