G BABU RAO Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a Deputy Registrar in the Bangalore university. Some sordid affairs going on in the University were exposed by a T. V. Channel. It showed that the appellant also was involved in the mischief and misconduct. Viewing the matter very seriously the Registrar of the University issued Annexure-A show-cause notice dated 5-4-2007 directing the appellant to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for his involvement in the scandal as telecast by channel - T. V. 9. On the same day as per Annexure-B he was transferred and relieved from the Examination Branch with a direction to report to the Registrar, Bangalore University to receive orders regarding the exact place of work. The appellant submitted Annexure-C reply dated 7-4-2007 to Annexure-A show-cause notice. In Annexure-C reply, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. On 7-4-2007 itself the Registrar passed annexure-D order placing the appellant under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. Annexure-D order is based on the resolution taken by the Syndicate of the university in its meeting held on 7-4-2007. The Syndicate took such a decision after witnessing the C. D. of the telecast, which appeared in T. V. 9 Channel on 3rd and 4th April, 2007. Aggrieved by Annexure-D order of suspension the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6040/2007. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as per the order impugned in this Writ Appeal.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. The respondent-University was perfectly justified in placing the appellant under suspension in the given circumstances. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant and in view of the enquiry which has been initiated, if the appellant was not placed under suspension it would have interfered the course of justice and a proper enquiry into the allegations. Moreover, stern action like suspension was warranted in the given situation to restore the confidence of the students and the public in the University and the examination system.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that having transferred him on 5-4-2007 from the Examination Branch there was no justification for placing him under suspension on 7-4-2007. It is true that while enquiring into the allegation against an employee the Disciplinary Authority has the options of transferring the employee and placing him under suspension. But it does not mean that having transferred the employee he cannot be suspended at a later stage. In this case the transfer was the immediate response when the scandal was reported. 'suspension was the later response after the Syndicate had the opportunity to see the C. D. of the telecast. Having seen the C. D. of the telecast the Syndicate took a very serious view of the matter and felt that transfer was not sufficient in the given circumstances and suspension was necessary. There is no law which prevented the Syndicate from taking such a decision, Moreover, the appellant cannot contend that the decision to place the appellant under suspension was not based on any additional material or not under changed situation or circumstance. As pointed out earlier transfer was ordered before the Syndicate viewed the c. D. of the telecast. After viewing the C. D. the Syndicate decided to place the appellant under suspension. In such circumstances the earlier order of transfer cannot and should not stand in the way of the Syndicate placing the appellant under suspension. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that suspension order was issued even before considering Annexure-C explanation, appellant's reply to the notice directing the appellant to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for his involvement in the scandal. Though the appellant has denied the allegations, Annexure-D order shows that the suspension is pending enquiry. It implies that the respondent-University has decided to proceed with the disciplinary action. Therefore annexure-C explanation is no defence against annexure-D order of suspension.