Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6

5. Secondly, it was contended that Clause-8.9 of the Ph.D Regulations, 2010 of the University of Mysore provides that the Registrar (Evaluation) shall affix a Seal with the University Emblem stating that the Thesis was accepted for the award of Ph.D degree as per 2010 Regulation and issue this copy to the candidate. After the notification is issued, the thesis will be hosted on the website and the same will be sent to Inflibnet, as prescribed by UGC. Clause 8.10 contemplates about plagiarism charges and subsequent actions. In terms of this clause, if the University receives complaint of plagiarism with sufficient evidence or if any examiner points out occurrence of plagiarism in the thesis, the thesis shall be sent to a subject expert selected by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of experts forwarded by the BOS, to verify and ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism. Sub-Clause (b) of 8.10 provides that if plagiarism is proved, then a show cause notice shall be issued to the candidate and the Guide. After reply to the show cause notice, all documents/reports/answers to the show cause notice shall be placed before the Syndicate for the appropriate action including possible annulment of registration of the candidate and initiation of disciplinary action against the candidate and the Guide. This mandatory requirement was not followed by the respondents while passing the impugned order at Annexure-A.

6. Thirdly, the learned counsel submits that the Vice-Chancellor of the University has selected two subject experts Dr.S.Kabilan and Dr.NBL.Prasad. Dr.Kabilan's report suggests that only one difference can be found from both the work, "Dr.P.Thangamuthu studied in a time interval of minutes but Dr.Mahadevaiah studies in a time interval of days." Complete thesis evaluated using the Shodhagana and Anti-plagiarism Software shows 27% plagiarism present. The order of the University in much as plagiarism software makes it clear that 30% of plagiarism is acceptable, 27% plagiarism pointed out in Dr.Kabilan's report is within the acceptable limits and as such no punitive action is warranted. Dr.NBL.Prasad, the second subject expert only supports the report of Dr.S.Kabilan and no independent analysis is made to arrive at the conclusion.

14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.P.M.PARAMESHWARAMURTHY AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2013 KAR 209 has held thus:

"57. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with Romantic movement. Since the 18th century, new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence. Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud, and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. For professors and researchers, plagiarism is punished by sanctions ranging from suspension to termination, along with the loss of credibility and perceived integrity. In academic world plagiarism by students is a very serious offence that can result in punishments such as a failing grade on the particular assignment or for the course. For cases of repeated plagiarism or for cases in which a student commits severe plagiarism (example submitting a copied piece of writing as original work) a student may be suspended or expelled. In many universities, academic degree or awards may be revoked as a penalty for plagiarism. Therefore, plagiarism in short means theft of some one's creativity, ideas, language and it is a form of cheating. In academic circles, it is considered as dishonesty and academic fraud. It is morally and ethically unacceptable. It shows lack of character."

16. Judicial review is not to the decision but to the decision making process. Court is concerned with such process of decision making. If such process, found to be arbitrary, decision requires to be set aside. Clause 8.10 of the Ph.D Regulations 2010 of the University of Mysore runs thus:

"8.10 Plagiarism charges and subsequent actions:
(a) If the University receives complaint of plagiarism with sufficient evidence or if any examiner points out occurrence of plagiarism in the thesis, the thesis shall be sent to a subject expert selected by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of experts forwarded by the BOS, to verify and ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism.