HARADI RAGHAVENDRA PAI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was at the relevant time the Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank having its Branch Office at Dharwad has called in question the correctness of the order passed by the 3rd respondent/Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University withdrawing the degree conferred on him by the 1st respondent/University on the ground that he had committed fraud which disentitled him to hold the degree conferred on him. The relevant provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short the Act) under which action was taken against the petitioner read as under :

(2.) It transpires that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as the Assistant Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Dharwad. But all the same he sought admission to Udupi Law College and was admitted as a student in that Law College. The duration of the course for obtaining Law Degree in that college which was affiliated to the Mysore University is 3 years and, therefore, the petitioner was expected to put in the requisite attendance during the aforesaid period before he could take the University examinations prescribed for the Law degree course. The petitioner did appear for all the 3 examinations held during the years 1971 to 1974 and he obtained the LL. B. degree of Mysore University in the convocation held after the academic year 1974-75. However, sometime in the year 1976, one S.G. Dambal claiming to be a person interested in the purity of academic standards to be maintained by the University gave a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor, i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, bringing to the notice of the Vice-chancellor the alleged illegalities practised by the petitioner in obtaining the law degree and he requested the Vice Chancellor to take suitable action against the petitioner. He had stated in the complaint that the petitioner was working as the Assistant Manager in the Syndicate Bank for the last 5 years. But, while doing so, he kept terms as a regular student of Udupi Law College which is at a distance of 320 km. from Dharwad for a period of 3 years, that he appeared for the final year Law examination in April 1974 and had successfully completed the examination and he was conferred with the degree by the University, that a minimum of 70% of physical attendance nor the classes was required to admit a student for any examination; that the petitioner being an Assistant Manager in the Syndicate Bank, Dharwad, which was located at a distance of 320 k.m. from Udupi, it was physically impossible for him to attend the College and to obtain legally the necessary attendance. He has further stated in the complaint that the petitioner had not taken prior permission from the Syndicate Bank, i.e., his employer, for pursuing the Course in Udupi College and in the absence of such permission from his employer, the petitioner had committed gross misconduct. He also implicated the petitioner's father, Haradi Ramanatha Pai who was an Honorary Lecturer in the Udupi Law College at the relevant time and accused him of helping the petitioner in getting a certificate of physical attendance for 3 years culminating in the final year examination in which he appeared in April, 1974.

(3.) On the basis of this complaint, the Registrar of the 1st respondent/University issued a notice (Annexure-B ) to the petitioner asking him to furnish replies to the following questions : "1. Were you a student of the Udupi Law College, Udupi during the years 1971-74? 2. When did you appear for the Final LL. B. and pass it? 3. Did you receive the above degee in a Convocation ? If so, in what year? 4. Did you actually attend the Law course during the above period? Had you taken leave from the Bank during that period ? 5.From how long are you an employee of the Syndicate Bank at Dharwad? 6.In case you had not obtained leave from your Employer to attend the course in question, how did you manage to get the required attendance all through those three years?" The petitioners reply is produced as Annexure-C in the writ petition and that reply on the face of it is an evasive reply and did not fully meet the requirements of the questionnaire issued to the petitioner by the Registrar under Annexure-B. What the petitioner stated in the reply is that the allegation made against him is baseless ; that the college had produced the necessary certificates for his attendance for all the three years before he appeared for the examination and in the usual course he had appeared for all the examinations and taken the degree and he had also migrated to Karnataka University for the M.A. Degree examination for the academic year 1974-75. This explanation of the petitioner being wholly unsatisfactory and evasive the Controller of Examinations who is the Specially Empowered Authority under the Act issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 1-5-1976 specifically alleging that he had manipulated the attendance records with the help of his father Haradi Ramanath Pai who was a part time Professor in the said Law College and thus abetted by his father, he had cheated the University and thus committed gross misconduct; that he while working as an Assistant Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Dharwad Branch, enrolled himself as a student of the LL. B. Course at the Udupi Law College, Udupi, during the years 1971-74 without obtaining proper sanction of the authorities of the Bank for such enrolment and he managed to have his attendance marked to his advantage in order to satisfy the attendance requirements of the University whereas he had not taken leave from his post for a time long enough to make such attendance possible. The petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to answer the aforesaid charges.