V CHICKAVENKATAPPA Vs. CHANCELLOR MYSORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was during the relevant period working as Director of Physical Education in the respondent-University. A disciplinary enquiry into certain charges of misconduct was initiated against him and entrusted to Sri Ko. Channabasappa, retired District and Sessions Judge. The enquiry eventually culminated in a report holding the charges to have been proved. A notice dated 20th of January, 1995 was then issued asking the petitioner to file a representation against the report. In response, the petitioner by a communication dated 27th of January, 1995 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority asked for a month's time to do so. In the meantime, be questioned the fairness of the enquiry as also the findings recorded in the same in W. P. No. 2936 of 1995, which was disposed of by Krishnamoorthy, J. , by his order dated 3rd of February, 1995 with the observation that the petitioner was free to raise all the objections in regard to the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The following passage from that order is in this connection relevant:

(2.) THE petitioner's request for grant of time was rejected by the Registrar in terms of his letter dated 27th of January, 1995 without placing the matter before the Disciplinary Authority. A second request was then made by the petitioner for grant of time by his letter dated 30th of january, 1995 addressed to the Syndicate. Before the petitioner could file his objections or even receive an intimation about the fate of his request an order dismissing him from service was passed on 1st of February, 1995. That order, it is obvious, made the observations of this Court extracted earlier infructuous for even before the petitioner could pursuant to the liberty reserved to him file his objections to the report, the Disciplinary Authority had taken a final decision in the matter. Even the University appears to have noticed the anomaly arising out of its action as it had the matter posted on 7th of February, 1995 for being spoken to only to inform the Court that the Syndicate had at its meeting held on 1st of February, 1995 decided to impose upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The Court did not appreciate this hasty action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority although it did not interfere with the order already made and reserved liberty for the petitioner to raise all the objections available to him in an appropriate appeal before the Chancellor. This is evident from the following passage from the order passed by this Court on 7th of February, 1995:

(3.) AN appeal was accordingly preferred by the petitioner, in which the petitioner among other grounds challenged the order of dismissal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority had without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to him to file objections ordered his dismissal from service.