K.N.KATTIMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 30/6/2022 passed by the respondents herein at Annexure-D.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, the petitioner was nominated as the Vice-chancellor of the University of Agriculture Science, Raichur, and he is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of October 2022. On the complaint of misappropriation against the petitioner, respondent no.1 had appointed a committee headed by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi, to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and the order appointing the said committee dtd. 21/2/2022 was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.200640/2022 and this Court vide its order dtd. 3/3/2022 had stayed the said order dtd. 21/2/2022 passed by respondent no.1. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents have taken steps for appointing a Retired Judge of the High Court as a one man committee for holding an inquiry against the petitioner and accordingly, had issued an order dtd. 30/6/2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents having suffered an interim order in W.P.No.200640/2022, in order to circumvent the same, have passed a fresh order appointing the Retired Judge of the High Court as the one man committee to inquire into the very same allegations. He submits that efforts are made by the respondents to malign the petitioner at the instance of certain political agents who have got ill-will against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is due to retire in the month of October 2022, and therefore, all attempts are made to malign the petitioner. He submits that a reading of the impugned order at Annexure-D would go to show that the said order is passed at the instance of the Government. He has placed reliance on Sec. 27(9) of the Karnataka University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act') and submits that the Government has no role to play in the inquiry as against the Vice-Chancellor and it is only the Chancellor who is empowered to appoint a Retired Judge of the High Court for the purpose of inquiry, and thereafter, take necessary steps on the basis of the inquiry report.