Karnataka High Court
Rudragouda vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 27 February, 2020
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.31734/2016 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
RUDRAGOUDA
S/O FAKIRGOUDA RAYANAGOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT No.G901, SRI RAMA SAMRUDHI APARTMENT
VARTHUR ROAD, KUNDANAHALLI GATE
BENGALURU-560066. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.S.HOSMATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
BY ITS REGISTRAR
DHARWAD-580001.
2. BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS
BY ITS SECRETARY
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. SUNIL P. KULKARNI
S/O PAMPAPATI KULKARNI
WORKING AS ASST. ENGINEER [CIVIL]
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
HANUMANAHATTI
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT-581110. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.G.NAYAK, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA. FOR R-2;
SRI B.J.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R-3.)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 TO HOLD DISCIPLINARY ACTION
AND ENQUIRY AND INITIATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF
FOUND GUILTY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be the retired engineer from the respondent No.1 - University, has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 inasmuch as the genuineness of his marks cards and diploma certificates at Annexures-A, B, C and D are concerned and further to prosecute the respondent No.3 for manipulating the said documents.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 who was working as junior engineer [Civil] in the respondent No.1 - University has produced the fake marks cards and fake certificates to secure the employment. It is submitted that the marks cards at -3- Annexures-A, B and C and the certificate at Annexure-D were signed by the Secretary, who was not holding the charge during the relevant period. Hence, seeks for interference of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that, the official respondents have failed to consider the consolidated marks cards and diploma certificate of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 had played fraud to secure the employment and thus he is liable to be subjected to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed the statement of objections. It is submitted that the marks cards and the certificate of the respondent No.3 were forwarded to the respondent No.2 - Board for verification and the same are certified by the Board as genuine in -4- terms of the certification made on 29.01.2003. In view of the genuineness of the marks cards/certificates of the respondent No.3 being verified and found to be correct from the competent Board, initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.3 merely on the allegations of the petitioner not supported by any substantial material is not called for.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The petitioner only with a personal vengeance against this respondent, with malafide intention of harassing and defaming the reputation of this respondent has filed this writ petition. At the threshold, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that all the consolidated marks cards of the respondent No.3 were forwarded to the respondent No.2 - Board, by the employer - respondent No.1 and after ascertaining the genuineness -5- of the same, no action against the respondent No.3 has been taken. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected firstly for the reason that the petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile superior officer of the respondent No.3 who is now retired, cannot seek the relief of initiating disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. If any such fraud alleged said to have been committed by the respondent No.3, ought to have been discovered by the petitioner during his service period in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. The petitioner/officer after his retirement becomes functus officio. No officer can continue to discharge his functions subsequent to his retirement and more particularly, to take action against the subordinate officer or to seek such direction from -6- this Court. As could be seen, it appears to be a personal vendetta of the petitioner against the respondent No.3.
7. The writ of mandamus could be issued only in the circumstances where the statutory authorities fail to perform their functions vis-à-vis the fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner must establish that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty, by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting. Such duty may be one imposed by the Constitution, Statute, Common Law or by Rules or Orders having force of law. It is well settled principle that there must be a demand and a denial in substance by the authority concerned in order to claim the relief of writ of mandamus. It is ex- facie apparent that there is neither vested right nor any such request/representation/attempt made by the petitioner with the employer to examine the allegations now raised against the respondent No.3. No legal -7- rights/fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. No mandamus could be issued just to set right or settle the individual differences or disputes. The Writ Court cannot be used as a tool to resolve the personal enmity or such inter-se disputes.
8. The original documents now made available before the Court by the respondent No.1 depicts that all the marks cards and certificates are duly verified and attested by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Bengaluru on 30.10.2003 as genuine. The original service registrar of the respondent No.3 also supports the genuineness of the marks cards/certificates, since it was the responsibility/duty of the superior officer, the petitioner herein, who during his service period has accepted the same without any demur and has now raised his voice alleging fraud.
-8-
9. It is significant to note that the third respondent is now retired from service on 31.07.2019. The petitioner has filed an application - I.A-1/2018 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to release any retirement benefits to the respondent No.3 until the disposal of the writ petition. This conduct of the respondent would necessarily indicate his personal vengeance against the respondent No.3.
For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition being bereft of any substance, stands dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks.
The original records shall be returned to the respondent No.1.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.