A S SHIRWAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was an officer employee of the respondent-university of agricultural sciences, g. k. v. k. , Bangalore, till the impugned orders of compulsory retirement from service was passed by board of regents of the university dated 9-2-1998. He was working as associate professor of soil sciences in the regional research centre at brahmavar, dakshina kannada, at the relevant point of time. authority, the delinquent officer, by yet another letter dated 12-5-1997, repeated the earlier request. Since he did not receive any reply from the disciplinary authority of the respondent-university, petitioner without the assistance of any documents, the deposition of witnesses, filed his reply dated 26-6-1997 inter alia taking up several contentions, to which i will refer to it little later, and further requested the disciplinary authority not to accept the recommendation made by the enquiry committee.

(2.) THE respondent-university on the basis of the complaint lodged by Dr. A. s. kumaraswamy, who was working as in charge associate director of research at brahmavar, dakshina kannada, had issued a show-cause notice dated 4-10-1996, inter alia alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the petitioner, while working as associate professor of soil sciences at brahmavar. The show-cause notice directed the petitioner to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, why disciplinary action should not. Be initiated against him for the alleged lapses contained in the notice. this notice came to be replied by the petitioner by his reply letter dated 9-11-1996, denying the contents in the notice. Respondents not being satisfied with the explanation offered and in contemplation of domestic enquiry proceedings issued an order dated 14 11-1996 keeping the petitioner under suspension and on the same day, the university in exercise of its power under statute 11. 1 (a) of the statutes constituted an enquiry committee to inquire into the alleged acts of misconduct contained in the show-cause notice, without even issuing a forma! Charge memo, statement of imputations, list of documents and the witness list.

(3.) THE enquiry committee so constituted by the disciplinary authority met for the first time on 7-2-1997 and on the same day closed the enquiry proceedings, and submitted its report finding petitioner guilty of the accusations made in the show-cause notice and further recommending to the disciplinary authority to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement from service and to treat the period of suspension as period not spent on duty.