ANNAIAH GOWDA Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the memo dated 4 -1 -1985 bearing No.PS.55/A/83 84 along with statement of Article of Charges, produced as Annexure -H, issued by the Divisional Commissioner and Enquiry Authority under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He has also sought for quashing the directions issued by the 1st respondent in No DO.G.S.48 MUM/84, dated 12 -6 -1984 and letter of even number dated 3 -7 -1984, from the Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka.

(2.) THE petitioner being the Head of the Department of English, was being appointed as Examiner and Chairman of the Board of Examiners in English every year for the Postgraduate examination of the University of Mysore. During the examination held in the academic year 1983, it is alleged that certain Mal - practices are committed by him; therefore, he must be removed from the Chairmanship of the Board of Examiners. A complaint is submitted as per Annexure -K before the Syndicate, the Senate and also before the Chancellor of the University of Mysore, as per Annexure -J. As far as the Syndicate is concerned, it initiated a proceeding in the regard under Section 6(sic) of the Act As it was not in accordance with law, it withdrew that proceeding with liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding. So far it has not initiated any proceeding. The Chancellor of the University, who is the Governor of Karnataka, has appointed the 2nd respondent as the Enquiry Authority in exercise of his powers under Section 8 of the Act. Pursuant to that the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned memo (Annexure -H) along with statement of Article of Charges. It is the validity of this action of the Chancellor and Annexure -H issued by the 2nd respondent that are challenged in this petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to the contentions of the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, whether under Section 8 of the Act, the Chancellor is entitled or has power to direct an enquiry into the mal -practice committed by the Examiner/s or by the Chairman of the Board of Examiners ?