M G JAYARAM NAIDU Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the University of Mysore. In the year 1970, a, committee was constituted by the Syndicate of the University to hold an enquiry into the leakage of certain question papers in the subject of Zoology (Major) of the Final B.Sc., Degree Examination held in April (May, 1970. The said committee examined twenty-three witnesses and recorded their evidence. On a consideration of the material collected, the committee was of the opinion that a regular departmental enquiry should be held against the petitioner who was working, as the Superintendent in the administration branch of Yuvaraja's College, at the relevant point of time Thereafter, the Registrar of the University was appointed as an enquiry officer, to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. On the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar, the Vice- Chancellor found that the petitioner was guilty of three charges, which had been framed against him, and awarded the punishment of reduction to the grade of Senior Assistant from that of the Superintendent. By another order dt.18-6-1971, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at the minimum of the scale of Senior Assistant. It was also ordered that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, for a, period of five years, from the date he reported to duty as Senior Assistant. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The principal contention urged by Sri Satyanarayana, learned Counsel appearing for the, petitioner, in support of the above writ petition, is that the enquiry held by the Registrar, into the charges framed against the petitioner, is vitiated on the grqund that the principles of natural justice had been violated It is seen from the report of the Registrar that no witnesses were examined in support of the charges in the course of the enquiry held by him The Registrar appears to, have acted on the statements of witnesses recorded by the committee The witnesses were not even produced at the time of the enquiry and made to admit that they had made such statements before the committee. It is, no doubt true that the petitioner was asked whether he would like to cross-examine any of the witnesses who had been examined before the committee But, that in my opinion cannot be considered as affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in the enquirv before the Registrar

(3.) It may not be always necessary to examine a, witness in-chief in the presence of a person against whom an enquiry is being held But as observed by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v Sivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, AIR. 1965 SC. 375. it would be necessary to call the witness, who has given a prior statement at the time of the enquiry, and to ask him whether he had made such a statement If he affirms that such a statement has been made, then the person against whom disciplinary enquirv is being held, should bo given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness Dealing with the above question the Supreme Court has observed as follows :