T M AMINABHAVI Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER questioning the legality and validity of the resolution passed by first respondent-Karnataka University dated 8th January, 2007 in proceedings bearing No. KU-Syndicate/meeting/2006-2007/58 and the articles of Charges issued by second respondent dated 27th January, 2007 bearing No. KU/dpar (T)2007/604 vide Annexures A and b respectively, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of petitioner is that, petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the respondent-University in the Department of Chemistry. Thereafter, petitioner has discharged the duties of Director of Polymer science an Institute established by the University Grants Commission (UGC ). When things stood thus, the Syndicate of the first respondent-University has passed the resolution in its meeting held on 9th January. 2007, authorising the second respondent herein to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner vide Annexure A. The second respondent has issued the Articles of Charges against the petitioner vide Annexure B dated 27th January, 2007. Being aggrieved by the impugned decision taken by Syndicate and the articles of Charges issued by second respondent-petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned decision of the syndicate and the Articles of Charges issued by second respondent.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned resolution passed by the syndicate is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the Articles of Charges issued as per the authorisation given to the second respondent by Syndicate is liable to be quashed as arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the Articles of charges nor the Syndicate has any power to initiate or direct to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that, the Chancellor, being the Disciplinary Authority as envisaged under S. 8 read with S. 11 of the Karnataka universities Act, is the authority for initiating the proceedings and not the Syndicate of first respondent. Hence, the impugned decision taken by the Syndicate and the Articles of Charges issued by the second respondent vide Annexures A and B respectively cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. The material on record also shows that, the alleged incident has taken place when the petitioner was working as Director of polymer Science Institute for the act done while discharging his duties as Director of the Polymer Science Institute and, therefore, the respondents have no right or authority to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner. Further, he submitted that, petitioner was attained the age of superannuation on 16th january, 2007 and the Articles of Charges is issued on 27th January, 2007. Hence, the same is also illegal and unsustainable.