C S NARMADA Vs. VISVESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by impugned memo bearing No. VTU/exam//2001-02/2680, dated 19th June, 2002 issued by the registrar (Evaluation) vide Annexure-A, order dated 19th June, 2002 bearing No. VTU/exam/2002-03/2685, dated 19th June, 2002 vide annexure-C and the order dated 9th July, 2002 bearing No. VTU/exam/2001-02/3032 vide Annexure-K, respectively, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, the petitioner has sought to declare the memo and the aforesaid orders as devoid of any authority of law and as stigamatory and penal in nature.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was in-service in r. V. Engineering College, Bangalore as Lecturer in the Department of electronics and Communications. At the 3rd semester Examination conducted by the first and second respondents-Visveswaraiah technological University, Belgaum (hereinafter called the "university")in the month of January/february 2002, the petitioner was appointed as external examiner for conduct of IC lab examinations held at the PESIT, bangalore. Be that as it may.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that, she scrupulously discharged the Examination duty that had been assigned to her by the University and there was no dereliction of duty on her part nor any negligence that she had shown. When things stood thus, the second respondent herein has issued the memo dated 19th June, 2002 calling upon her to furnish her explanation as to why action should not be taken against her for dereliction of duty. Immediately, the petitioner has given her explanation to the said memo on 20th June, 2002 vide Annexure-B requesting the University Authority to permit her to see the original answer booklets in order to give the explanation and by mere seeing the photo copy of the answer booklet cover, it would not be possible for her to give the explanation and requested the University to make necessary arrangements to make available the original answer booklets. Instead of considering the request of the petitioner and making available the original answer booklets, the second respondent herein has passed the order dated 19th June, 2002 vide Annexure-C, directing the petitioner to refund the remuneration paid to her for the conduct of practical examination in the subject IC. Lab and that, the amount shall be submitted to the principal of the respective College in the form of a demand Draft drawn in favour of the Finance Officer, VTU, Belgaum. Further, the petitioner was also directed to be suitably warned to be more vigilant in future. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has given a detailed representation to the first respondent dated 26th june, 2002 vide Annexure-F. Be that as it may. The Principal of the R. V. Engineering College has issued a memo dated 24th June, 2002 bearing no. RVE/1061/2002-03 directing the petitioner to refund the remuneration paid to her for the conduct of practical Examination for the subject IC. Lab by way of Demand Draft in favour of Finance officer, VTU, Belgaum and was also warned that, she should be more vigilant in future. Immediately, she replied to the Principal on 26th june, 2002 vide Annexure-H and thereafter, once again she submitted a representation on 26th June, 2002 stating that, there is no negligence on her part and the warning administered to her in the order was wholly misplaced and unfortunate, the same having been administered without affording the basic minimum opportunity of having her say in the matter. It is the further case of the petitioner that, without considering the reply filed by her and without giving opportunity and without providing the original answer scripts to enable her to give proper explanation, with regard to the mistake that had crept in, the second respondent has straightway passed the order dated 9th July, 2002, permanently debarring the petitioner from the confidential work of the university for dereliction of duty and in view that, the allotment of any confidential work of the University to the petitioner was strictly prohibited thereafter. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders referred to above, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.