LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-235

VINAYKUMAR BALKRISHNA RALE Vs. UNIVERSITY OF PUNE

Decided On September 04, 2008
VINAYKUMAR BALKRISHNA RALE Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF PUNE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common point is involved in both these petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment

(2.) WHETHER the petitioners herein can be said to have committed an act of plagiarism in view of the fact that their name appears as coauthors in the Article published in the journal.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to recapitulate the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Committee regarding the allegations and charges against Dr. Rale and Dr. Hegde. The Committee has taken into account various aspects involved in the inquiry, the issues involved and the role played by Dr. Rale and Mr. Hegde into the alleged misconduct against them. Dr. Rale, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1997 was subjected to ten charges. Charge No.1 was in connection with copying the article by the Petitioner along with Ms. Geeta Ramesh and Dr. M.G. Hegde (petitioner of Writ Petition No.5405 of 2007. They committed the act of plagiarism by publishing an article 'Decryptification of Saccharomyces carisbergensis with dimethul Sulfoxide for rapid determination of a Glucosidase' in the Indian journal of Microbiology. The Committee found that the act of the authors is scientifically unethical and all accepted code of conduct in publishing papers. Charge No.2 was in connection with the article published by M.H. Haggstrom and C.L. Cooney viz. a Glucosidase Synthesis in Batch and continuous culture of Saccharomyses Cerevision in Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 1984 Vol.7, Pp.475481. The petitioner along with Dr. Begde and Ms. Geeta Ramesh copied the said article almost in entirety and committed an act of plagiarism by publishing an article 'Glucosidase Synthesis in Batch and continuous culture of Saccharemyces cerevision' published in World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1992, Vol.8, pp42-44. The Committee found that the petitioner is the coauthor of the copied paper and as a Ph.D. guide and the author he was expected to check the manuscript and in particular the results, discussion and reference. It was found that if he had verified the results, critically evaluated the discussions part and examined the reference, he would have easily identified the omissions, errors and perhaps plagiarism. On the other hand it was found that he had transmitted this plagiarized paper for publication. After the paper was published, when the Editor informed him about the plagiarism, the petitioner along with Dr. Hegde submitted apology to be published in the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology and also to the authors of original papers for plagiarism and retracted the paper. The Committee found that it was not possible to disassociate the petitioner's name from the responsibility of publishing plagiarized paper. Charge No.3 was in connection with the petitioner and Dr. Hegde acting as Guide and Co-guide respectively for the Ph.D. work of Ms. Geeta Ramesh. The petitioner resubmitted the thesis of the student certifying that the thesis has been revised and that the work taken from other sources has been duly acknowledged. Dr. Tauro returned the same again not recommending the award of Ph.D. degree as, according to him, the thesis contained only the material of the published work of others. It was alleged that the petitioner had violated the code of conduct prescribed for the teachers by submitting the work which was not original and by issuing a false certificate. The Committee found that it was wrong for the guide to have given the certification that the work presented in the thesis was the original work of the student and such material as obtained from other sources had been duly acknowledged as the certification was turned out to be false. According to the Committee, in the revised thesis the guides once again issued the second certificate though it still contained extensive copying from at least two previously published papers and thus amounts to a gross and glaring omission on the part of the co-guides. The Committee found that the wrong certificate given for the first time might be under certain circumstances excused but when given for the second time it becomes unacceptable. Charge no.4 was in connection with not acting promptly when the act of plagiarism on his part was brought to his notice by Dr. P. Tauro and Dr. M. Goldenthal in May, 1991 and June, 1991 respectively. On this charge, the Committee found that in December, 1990 after hearing the plagiarized paper from Dr. Ratledge, he should have informed the University about the same and sought approval of the Vice-Chancellor before submitting apology to the Editor of the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. The Committee found that they should have expressed apology to the University authorities and accepted the responsibility on themselves rather than passing the whole blame on Ms. Geeta Ramesh. Charge No.5 was in connection with the false statement made to the Editor in chief of the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology that the student Ms Geeta Ramesh did not bring to his notice the existence of an already published article of M.M. Haggstrong and C.L. Cooney whereas Ms. Geeta Ramesh specifically admitted that the topic of research for her Ph. D. was finalized after discussions with the said two authors. The Committee found that the petitioner has failed to provide proper guidance to a research student. Charge No.6 was in connection with suppression of facts from the University authorities about the aforesaid incident, even though the petitioner, Dr. Hegde and Ms. Geeta Ramesh were in correspondence with the Editor in Chief of the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Dr. Cooney and others from December, 1992 to January, 1994. As regards charge No.7, the Committee found that the Petitioner has committed misconduct and willful persistent neglect of his duties by not submitting to the Vice-Chancellor the full report on the facts of the case, not withdrawing their article from the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology and not acting quickly to withhold the process of grant of Ph.D. to the student inspite of clear instructions to him by the Vice-Chancellor in December, 1992. Charge No.8 is in connection with misguiding the authorities by referring to unrelated aspects. According to the Committee, the head of the department is expected to keep the university authorities informed about the grave lapses that might be occurring in his department and as the petitioner being the department head failed to discharge this responsibility. As regards charge No. 9, the University had withdrawn the said charge. Charge No. 10 was in connection with the petitioner's misconduct as he failed to keep abreast himself with the upto date knowledge in the field of his subject when he admitted that he was not aware about the articles published by Prof. Bruce B. Adams and M.H. Haggstrong and C.L. Cooney. This charge was proved against him as per the report of the Committee.