ALKA UMESH ZADGAONKAR Vs. NAGPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by a student who has registered herself for award of Ph.D. i.e. Doctor of Philosophy, Degree of Nagpur University. By impugned communication dated 10/2/2004 she has been informed that Board of Examinations of University has on 20/12/2003 accepted the report of Disciplinary Action Committee and as a punishment rejected her thesis for Ph.D., debarred her for submitting thesis/treatise for higher degree for three years and decided to lodge a complaint about fabricated and forged document dated 22/8/2002 with police authorities. It is a contention of Respondents No. 1 to 4 that Petitioner has fabricated letter dated 22/08/2002 to show that examiner Dr. Shri Patwardhan has cleared her thesis for award of Ph.D. This action is being challenged as in breach of principles of natural justice and parties state that before earlier Bench on 6/11/2006 it was agreed that matter should be disposed of finally at admission stage and matter was accordingly listed for that purpose on 13/11/2006, 22/11/2006 and on 8/12/2006 but could not be taken up. Accordingly the parties have addressed court finally at the stage of admission itself. Said period of punishment of three years i.e. debarring her from submitting thesis/treatise for higher degree for three years has already expired. I have heard learned Senior Advocate M.G. Bhangde with Adv. Makarand Agnihotri for the Petitioner, Advocate B.G. Kulkarni for Respondents No. 1 to 4 & Advocate Sangram Sirpurkar for Respondent No.5.

(2.) To avoid repetition of facts, I find it proper to briefly mention the arguments of parties here itself. Petitioner states that there was no specific acts of unfair means & charge sheet or definite charges framed against her, statement of prosecution witnesses have not been recorded in her presence and procedure prescribed by Direction No.2 of Nagpur University in this respect has been violated. It is also her contention that finding of guilt is based only upon surmises and even circumstantial evidence falls short for that purpose. It is contended that procedure in Ph.D. section of University is confidential and Petitioner had no access to it. Malafieds are tried to be shown by making personal allegations against Respondent No.5, guide approved by Nagpur University for her Ph.D. thesis. It is argued that those complaints against Respondent No.5 have been ignored. If thesis is rejected by one of the two examiners, it is referred to third examiner and if such third examiner gives clearance, Ph.D. degree is awarded. There is no procedure in law which requires University to verify from examiner as to what happened to thesis sent to him. It is argued by Adv. Bhangde that acquaintance between Respondent No. 5 and Shri Patwardhan - examiner is established on record and with reference to procedure, it is argued that its violation has been demonstrated. Prayer made by Petitioner is to restore position as on 20/5/2002 i.e. the stage at which she was to appear before Shri Patwardhan for viva-voce. Nagpur University has defended its action by pointing out that standards applicable even in departmental inquiries will not apply with that strictness in such disciplinary action against student. It is contended that Petitioner was all the while aware of charge against her and has been given due opportunity to meet it. Lastly it is contended that in any case there is no prejudice suffered by the Petitioner in the matter. It is stated that as both examiners have rejected thesis of Petitioner, she is not entitled to claim status quo ante i.e. as prevailing prior to 23/05/2002. Learned Counsel Shri Sirpurkar appearing for Respondent No 5 has invited attention to submissions filed on record by said respondent and argued that petition is filed malafide against said respondent and deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. All Counsel have relied upon various cases to which reference will be made a little later.

(3.) (A) Petitioner is working as Head of Department of Applied Chemistry with Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, since last about 14 years and she states that since 1995-96 she has been independently working on "Waste Polymer Management". She states that Respondent No. 5 before this court viz. Shri Dr. G.K. Ghoshal, a Reader in Chemistry working with Laxmi Narayan Institute of Technology was aware of this fact and approached her with the proposal that she should work under him for Ph.D. She thereafter applied for registration to University for Ph.D. on the topic "Studies in co-processing of petroleum residues with other heavy materials for optimum yield and quality of Coker Product" showing Respondent No. 5 as guide for the research. She also continued to work on her initial project which is not connected with topic selected for the Ph.D. In March 2000 she invented fuel from waste plastic and out of respect for guide she informed this to Respondent No.5 first and thereafter made it public. On 29/1/2001 she and her husband applied for registering the patent in this respect and in March 2003 she also registered it with World Intellectual Property Organisation, Geneva. She was selected by Hon'ble President of India in Enterprise Panel for India Vision 2020 and was one out of two persons from State of Maharashtra. She was also invited by Hon'ble President to make presentation at Global Chief Executive Officers Summit "Vision 2020" held at Cochin on 25-26 September 2003. She alleges that her guide Respondent No. 5 started insisting that his name should be included as co-inventor & that she never took him seriously. On 23/8/2001 she submitted her thesis for Ph.D. On 16/2/2001 news flashed in local newspaper " The Hitavada" giving impression that she carried said work of inventing fuel under the guidance of Respondent No.5. On 18/2/2001 another News item appeared in same Newspaper according to which Vice Chancellor of Nagpur University again made similar incorrect statement and published its decision to felicitate Petitioner and her guide. She was accordingly felicitated with her guide on 9/3/2001 and she was referred to as Dr. Mrs. Zadgaonkar though she did not have any Ph.D. (Ph.D. degree) at that time. After this, Respondent No.5 started pressing for adding his name as co-inventor and threatened that otherwise he would see that she would not get her Ph.D. Petitioner further states that in December 2000 she started independently working on her treatise for D.Sc. Her husband then tried to reason with Respondent No.5 but there was no effect and Respondent No. 5 informed him that all examiners who would be screening her thesis were his friends and he would see to it that her thesis was summarily rejected. Ultimately on 1/2/2002 her husband met Pro-Vice Chancellor of University and as a result of that meeting a written complaint was then lodged on 1/2/2002 about these threats with University. Petitioner states that in last week of April 2002 Respondent No.5 approached her and communicated that he managed examiners of his own choice to evaluate her thesis and one of them had already rejected it while the other examiner had kept his report ambiguous. He told her that if he was not included as co-inventor in "fuel from plastic invention", her thesis for award of Ph.D. degree would be rejected. Petitioner states that though she believed that such threats would not affect high standards of University, she suffered nervous breakdown. On 6/5/2002 another complaint was made to University about Respondent No.5 and thereafter there was no insistence from Respondent No.5.