Karnataka High Court
Dr. M. Venkataramanappa vs The Chancellor, Bangalore University ... on 4 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: ILR2008KAR2013, 2008 (3) AIR KAR R 322
Author: H.N. Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
JUDGMENT H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.04.2007 in W.P. No, 13031/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. In the year 2002 the respondent- University awarded Ph.D. by duly admitting the appellant for convocation for his research on the subject "Small Farmers in Rural Karnataka-A Sociological Study". The first respondent - Chancellor received complaints stating that the thesis submitted by the appellant was plagiarized. Similar complaints were also given to the fourth respondent - Vice Chancellor. The first respondent - Chancellor by his communication dated 29.03.2003 directed the fourth respondent - Vice Chancellor to enquire into the matter and to take appropriate action and to report compliance of the same within one month. Before the communication dated 29.03.2003 reached the Vice Chancellor, the respondent - University referred the thesis submitted by the appellant to the Institute for Social and Economic Changes and they submitted a report on 14.02.2003 and the relevant portion reads as under:
Please find below a detailed assessment based on my reading of the two Dissertations. In short, I may summarize here by finding as confirming that there is a prima facie evidence of plagiarisation on the part of the author of the second Dissertation, who is said to be doctoral student of the author of the first. Surprisingly, however, even the dissertation by the research guide has sufficient evidence of plagarisation from other sources.
3. Thereafter the University has referred the matter to a Committee of three outside experts. The Committee submitted its report stating that the allegation of plagiarism as baseless. The academic council and the syndicate of the respondent - University accepted the report submitted by the Committee of three experts. Long thereafter the first respondent - Chancellor by exercising his powers under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') issued notification on 30.08.2006 appointing an enquiry committee to enquire into the allegation of plagiarism of Ph.D. thesis submitted by the appellant and the involvement of his guide, Professor B.C. Mylaraiah. The appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 30.08.2006 filed W.P. No. 13031/2006. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the action of first respondent - Chancellor in initiating enquiry against the appellant. Hence, this writ appeal.
4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ appeal papers and relevant file from the office of Chancellor. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act are the relevant provisions for the purpose of this appeal. Section 8 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to constitute a commission of enquiry consisting of one or more persons to enquire into any specific allegation. It further specifies that on receipt of report from the commission of enquiry the Chancellor shall record his findings there on and send the same to the Government for taking further action as may be directed by him. Further the State Government to direct the Vice Chancellor to initiate such action and the Syndicate shall implement the directions of the Government The Vice Chancellor inturn shall communicate to the State Government about the compliance of directions of the State Government. In the event the Vice Chancellor fails to comply the directions of the State Government, then it shall be reported to the Chancellor and thereon the order of the Chancellor shall be final and be implemented by the Vice Chancellor. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to issue directions either suo-motu or on the recommendation of the State Government to the University both on administrative and academic functioning of the University. It further specifies, that the Chancellor shall issue directions particularly to ensure peace and tranquillity and to protect the property and finance of the University.
5. Before proceeding further, we feel it appropriate to set out the provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Universities Act which reads as hereunder:
8. Discipline, Inspection and control.- (1) The Chancellor may suo motu or on the recommendation of the State Government cause an inspection to be made by a Commission of Enquiry consisting of one or more persons as he may direct, of the buildings, Laboratories, Libraries, Museum, Workshops and equipments of any institution maintained, administered, recognised or approved, by the University and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and into any specific allegations against any employee of the University in like manner in respect of any matter connected with or ancillary thereto.
9. Power to issue directions. - The Chancellor may either suo motu or on the recommendation of the State Government issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of both administration and academic functioning of the University and in particular to ensure peace and tranquility and to protect the property and finances.
A simple reading of Sections 8 and 9 as above make it clear that these two provisions are entirely different and meant to achieve different purposes and furthermore the powers conferred on the Chancellor under Section 8 of the Act are entirely different from the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Act. Keeping in view the scope of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the case in hand. Pursuant to the complaints received on the thesis submitted by the appellant, the Chancellor vide communication dated 29.03.2003 issued directions to the Vice Chancellor to enquire into the matter, take appropriate action and to report compliance of the same within one month. In this communication dated 29.03.2003 the Chancellor has not constituted a commission of enquiry. Therefore the communication dated 29.03.2003 issued by the Chancellor squarely falls under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore we decline to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Chancellor by exercising power under Section 8 of the Act issued directions to the University in his communication dated 29.03.2003.
6. The material on record discloses that the respondent University at the first instance referred the thesis submitted by the appellant to the Institute for Social and Economic Changes and they submitted a report on 14.02.2003 stating that there is prima facie evidence of plagiarisation on the part of the appellant (emphasis is supplied by us). Ignoring this report submitted by the Institute for Social and Economic Changes, the respondent University appointed a committee of three outside experts. It is worth noting that this expert committee submitted its report stating that the allegation of plagiarism is baseless; interestingly the academic council of the Syndicate of the respondent University without demur accepted the report submitted by the committee of three experts. Having secured the concerned file from the office of the Chancellor we have perused the same and furthermore gone through very meticulously and carefully to reach at the bottom of truth with regard to the allegation of the plagiarism by the appellant and the same discloses that the report submitted by committee of three experts and the decision of the academic council of the Syndicate of the respondent University accepting the report was not at all communicated to the Chancellor. The notings in the file of the Chancellor discloses that the file in question remained dormant for long length of time without being brought to the notice of the Chancellor. Therefore we are of the considered view that the respondent University, for the reasons best known to it, failed to comply in letter and spirit the directions issued by the Chancellor in his communication dated 29.03.2003 on the point at controversy.
7. Further it is seen from the file of the Chancellor referred to above that for the first time in the month of June 2006 the report submitted by the committee of three outside experts and acceptance of the same by the academic council of the Syndicate of the respondent University was brought to the notice of the Chancellor. It is to be observed in this context that the Chancellor noticed the fact that the respondent University ignored the independent report which in our view unbiased one, submitted by the Institute of Social and Economic Changes. It is not in dispute that the thesis submitted by the appellant is in Kannada. The Chancellor noticed the fact that one member of the expert committee was not familiar with Kannada language. Further it is seen from the record that one member of the expert committee without examining the thesis papers in question and without participating in the deliberation of the Committee authorised the Chairman of the Committee to take decision and to abide by it; quite possible that member might have been one who was not knowing Kannada language. Under the peculiar circumstances, the Chancellor had rightly exercised his power under Section 8 of the Act and issued the impugned notification constituting a committee of three experts to enquire into the matter.
8. Though the Chancellor in his communication dated 29.3.2003 issued certain directions to the Vice Chancellor but the said direction was not complied with by the Vice Chancellor for the reasons best known to him. The decision of the academic council of the Syndicate of the respondent University accepting the report of the expert committee, in our considered view, will not in any way take away the powers conferred on the Chancellor under Section 8 of the Act he being the head of the very University, his powers being well set out under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Further there is no bar for the Chancellor to exercise his power under Section 8 of the Act though, on earlier occasion he issued directions under Section 9 of the Act. As already pointed out by us, the object and purpose of provisions in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act are entirely distinct and different. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge it appears to us that the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances has rightly rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant. Therefore we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we have no good reason to differ with the same.
9. For the reasons stated above, this writ appeal is dismissed without there being any order as to costs.