THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF S.V.T. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND ANR. versus A. RAGHUPATHY BHAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 03-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
;w 
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF 
A 
S.V.T. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND ANR. 
v. 
A. RAGHUPATHY BHAT AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1997 
B 
-~ 
[K. RAMASWA.i\1Y AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline & Control) Act: c 
Rule 12(3) & 12(4)-:Employee suspended from service-Domestic en-
quiry conducted-Order of removal passed-Tribunal setting aside the order 
of tennination on the ground that the employee was not paid subsistence 
----
allowance-Remitted for fresh enquiry-High Court stayed the domestic en-
D 
~ 
quiry-On appeal held, as a consequence of setting aside of order af tennina-
tion or removal or dismissalfurther enquiry is required to be undertaken from 
that stage-Pending enquiry the employee must be deemed to be under 
·suspension-High Court was not right in foreclosing the further en-
quiry--Employer directed to continue and complete the enquiry within four 
months-Sum paid to the employee pursuant to High Court's direc-
E, 
tions-Would be subject to the result of the enquiry and final order and 
adjusted towards subsistence allowance or otherwise. 
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., 
[1993] 4 sec 727' followed. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 695-698 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.96 and 5.8.96 of Karnataka 
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 934, 2362/93 & C.P. Nos. 365-66 of 1996. 
G 
..... 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, G.V. Chandershekhar, P.P. Singh and Siveam for 
...: 
the Appellants . 
T.L.V. Iyer, T.K. Gpinath, Girish Chandra and P. Mahale for the 
Respondents. 
H / 
865 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard counsel on both sides. 
B 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Karnataka 
High Court, made on 18.4.1996 in C.R.P. Nos. 934/93 and 2362/93 and the 
order dated 5.8.1996 ih C.P. Nos. 365 and 366 of 1996. 
· 
The admitted position is that the respondent was suspended from 
service on 18.3.1~89. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the order of 
C removal was passed. A petition was filed by the respondent against the said 
order before the Tribunal constituted under Kamataka Education Act, 
1983. The Tribunal on finding that the respondent was not paid the 
subsistence allowance, set aside the order of termination and remitted the 
m,atter for fresh enquiry. In revision, the High Court stayed the domestic 
D enquiry and the civil petition was allowed by the High Court. Thus, this 
appeal by special leave. 
It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this matter. Rules 
12(3) and 12(4) of the Rules framed under Karnataka Private Educational 
Institutions· (Discipline & Control) Act, provide that in a case where a 
E penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirem~nt from service im-
posed upon an employee is set aside in an appeal or on review under these 
Rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any 
· other direction or under Rule 12( 4) of the Rules is rendered void in 
consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary 
F authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold 
further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of 
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirem.ent was originally imposed, the 
employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the 
appointing auth0rity from the date of the original order of dismissal, 
removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under 
G suspension until further orders. Thus, it can be seen that the Rules provide 
for further enquiry to be conducted by the disciplinary authority. It is 
settled law that the employer has power to conduct enquiry afresh from 
the stage at which the illegality in the proceedings is found vitiating the 
action. The High Court is, therefore, not right in foreclosing ,further 
H enquiry after upholding the order of the Tribunal which has held that there 
) 
S.V.T. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION v. A.RAGHUPATHY BHAT 867 
is need for further enquiry and the order of removal was set aside because A 
of non-payment of subsistence allowance. The question whether the order 
of removal was bad"m law for non-payment of subsistence allowance is left 
open, as it has not been canvassed. The disciplinary authority's Proceeding 
further, as a consequence of remittance of the order, is clearly adumbrated 
und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.