Karnataka High Court
Dr Shambulingappa B E vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:3562
WP No. 29183 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 29183 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR SHAMBULINGAPPA B E
S/O B ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS PROFESSOR (IN CHARGE)
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
VETERINARY COLLEGE, SHIVAMOGGA-577204
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
CHAITHRA A 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY
Location:
HIGH AND VETERINARY
COURT OF REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES
SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:3562
WP No. 29183 of 2023
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE R2 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES OF
CHARGE DATED 16/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND B) QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 16/12/2023
BEARING NO. RGR-RECT/5/5/2023-RCRT-KARNATAKA
VETERINARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
ISSUED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned articles of charge dated 16.12.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A.
2. The facts relating to the case are as under:
Petitioner claims that he has acquired PhD degree in Biotechnology in December, 2012 while in service at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University(JNTU), Hyderabad, Telangana. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned articles of charge on the ground that petitioner is guilty for having committed plagiarism in research/thesis while securing the PhD Degree at JNTU, Hyderabad, Telangana.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:3562 WP No. 29183 of 2023
3. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents, the short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.2 could have issued the impugned articles of charge, which is prima facie found to be in conflict with the Committee's reports, which are infact placed on record by respondents at Annexure-R2E and R2F. These Committee's opinions have a direct bearing on the impugned articles of charge, which are assailed in the captioned petition. Therefore, I deem it fit to cull out the relevant portion of Committee's report at Annexure-R2E which reads as under:
"The Committee is of the opinion that only after receiving complete documents from Dr.Prahlad, the same can be forwarded to your office for onward submission to JNTU, Hyderabad for further enquiry.
The Committee is also of the opinion that as submission of documents will take some more time and as it is an emergency matter affecting his promotion, suitable action may be initiated with available report at your office."-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:3562 WP No. 29183 of 2023
4. It would also be relevant to take cognizance of the supplementary report of the Committee, which is placed on record at Annexure-R2F. The said conclusion would also have a direct bearing on the relief sought in the captioned petition. Therefore the conclusion of the Committee is culled out for reference, which reads as under:
"Conclusion of the Committee
1. Four photographs appeared in the published article of Dr.B.E.Shambulingappa have similarities with that of thesis of Dr.Pralhad.
2. Since Dr.B.E.Shambulingappa has submitted his Ph.D thesis in Jawaharlal Technological University, Hyderabad, the matter may be verified with the authorities of JNTU, Hyderabad by sending the enclosed documents of MVSc thesis of Dr.Pralhad.
However, Anti-plagiarism Check of Ph.D Thesis of Dr.B.E.Shambulingappa, H.T. No.0803PH0256 issued on 14.11.2011 by i.e., Director, Research and Development Cell, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) Hyderabad stated that the thesis is within the permissible limit of 20% and the same is enclosed for your perusal."
5. On examining these Committee's report, this Court is of the opinion that edifice based on which the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:3562 WP No. 29183 of 2023 articles of charge are issued against the petitioner is on the ground that the petitioner is guilty for having committed plagiarism while submitting PhD thesis at JNTU, Hyderabad, Telangana. Interestingly, the Committee on two occasions has opined that the allegations as to whether petitioner has committed plagiarism while securing PhD degree needs to be looked into by the JNTU, Hyderabad. Therefore, the Committee at the first instance resolved that on receipt of complete documents from Dr. Prahlad, who has alleged that his thesis has been made as a reference to secure the PhD degree needs to be looked into by the JNTU, Hyderabad. Therefore, whether petitioner is guilty for having committed plagiarism, needs a full fledged enquiry at the instance of JNTU, Hyderabad. Even in the Committee's report, the Committee has opined that PhD thesis submitted by the petitioner to JNTU, Telangana, can be verified and revisited by JNTU, Hyderabad. The Committee in the supplementary report has recommended to send all the documents of MVSc thesis of Dr.Prahlad and the PhD thesis of petitioner to -6- NC: 2024:KHC:3562 WP No. 29183 of 2023 JNTU, Hyderabad. While doing so, the Committee has also taken cognizance of anti-plagiarism check to PhD thesis of petitioner where JNTU, Hyderabad having assessed the PhD thesis has concluded that the thesis submitted by the petitioner is well within the permissible limit of 20%. The Committee under two separate reports has opined that the allegation relating to plagiarism has to be looked into by the JNTU, Hyderabad.
6. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then the impugned articles of charge as per annexure-A issued by Respondent No.2 seems to be premature. The impugned articles of charge are also found to be contrary to the recommendations made by the Committee on two occasions which are also culled out supra.
7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that based on the impugned articles of charge, respondent No.2 cannot proceed further as indicated in the expert's Committee report.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:3562 WP No. 29183 of 2023
8. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to respondent No.2 to contemplate further action only on receipt of report from JNTU, Hyderabad.
Sd/-
JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6