Writ Petition No. 22384 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22384 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.H.L. VISHWANATH, S/O. LATE H.B.LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DEPUTY REGISTRAR , KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, R/A NO.21, 4TH CROSS, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION, MYSORE - 570 020. (BY SRI. VINAYAKA B, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES, KARNATAKA GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, RAJ BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MUKTHAGANGOTRI, MYSORE - 570 006. 3. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MUKTHAGANGOTRI, MYSORE - 570 006. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION , VIKASA SOUDHA , DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.NEELAKANTAPPA.K.PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & 4, SRI.M.B.NARGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SONAVAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DT.19.12.2014 VIDE ANNX-A. QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DT.13.5.2015 VIDE ANNX-B. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DT.15.5.2015 VIDE ANNX-C. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DT.13.5.2015 VIDE ANNX-B AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DT.15.5.2015 VIDE ANNX-C AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THERETO TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notification bearing No.GS 13 KOM 2014 dated 19.12.2014, issued by the respondent No.1 appointing a One Man Fact Finding Committee to enquire into certain allegations. The petitioner has also challenged the notification bearing No.GS 13 KOM 2014(P) dated 13.05.2015. In terms of which, Dr. Justice K.Bhaktavatsala, a Former Judge - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 of this Court, was appointed as One Man Fact Finding Committee to enquire into certain irregularities. The petitioner has also challenged an order bearing No.KSOU/AB/EST- 2/14/2014-15 dated 15.05.2015, in terms of which, he was placed under suspension. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he was officiating as a Deputy Registrar in the Karnataka State Open University (henceforth referred to as ‘KSOU’) from the year 2008 and was responsible for administration etc., He contends that prior to 2005, KSOU was issuing hand written marks cards to the candidates who had completed BA, B.com courses. Later, KSOU took a decision to computerize the process of issuing marks cards by entrusting the work of computerization to Meta- I Technologies. The Data Entry Operators appointed in Meta-I Technologies had entered the data of the candidates who had completed the course by looking into the registers maintained. The petitioner contends that there was a mistake in entering the data which gave raise to complaints against the officers who were working in the examination branch. He contends that none of the officers were involved in the process of computerization as none of them had any knowledge in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 field. Certain staff of University working in the examination branch made specific representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 03.12.2010, stating that they cannot be held responsible for the fiasco by an outside agency in the computerization of the marks cards. Based on certain news paper reports, a Fact Finding Committee was constituted to look into the allegations in terms of an order dated 16.04.2010. However, even after the term of the committee expired, no report was submitted. (ii) The petitioner contends that certain officials were purportedly involved in tampering the marks cards and based on prima facie evidence, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry against them. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the respondent No.3 stating that the charges against three officials - Sri.Quenean Ahmed, Smt.Sajida Begum and Sri.T.Ravindra were proved. Based on that, one of the officials Mr.Quenean Ahmed was dismissed from service and the other two were compulsorily retired. (iii) The employee who was dismissed from service (Mr.Quenean Ahmed) had an axe to grind against the petitioner and therefore made representations to the Vice-Chancellor and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 forwarded the representation to respondent No.2 to look into the same and take appropriate action. Another official approached the Karnataka Lokayukta and lodged a complaint against petitioner at the instance of Mr.Quenean Ahmed, which resulted in certain proceedings and the Lokayukta, after considering the complaint and reply of the petitioner held that there was no merit in the allegations made in the complaint and closed the complaint. (iv) Following this, repeated representations were made to respondent No.2 to look into the allegations regarding tampering of the marks cards. Therefore, a meeting was held by respondent No.2 on 16.04.2010 and he constituted a Fact Finding Committee headed by Sri.G.Narayana Prasad and four others, to look into the allegations. The Fact Finding Committee found that Mr.Quenean Ahmed was the main culprit and as he was already punished, there was no need to look into the complaint lodged against him. It also held that the error in issuing computerized marks card was attributable to the Department of Information Technology. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 (v) The report of the Fact Finding Committee was placed before the Board of Management, which accepted it and closed the complaint. Mr.Quenean Ahmed escalated the complaint before various authorities, which ultimately landed in the office of the respondent No.1, who after looking into the allegations held it appropriate to appoint a One Man Fact Finding Committee to look into the allegations in terms of the order dated 19.12.2014. Later, a Former Judge of this Court was appointed as a One Man Fact Finding Committee in terms of a notification dated 19.12.2014. Following the report of the Fact Finding Committee, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the institution of the Fact Finding Committee as well as the appointment of Dr. Justice K. Bhaktavatsala as a one man fact finding committee and the consequent suspension of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions and submitted that there is no sanctity for the appointment of a Fact Finding Committee, as issues are already put to rest by dismissing an employee who was responsible for the irregularities and illegalities pointed out. He therefore - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 contended that the issue is put to rest by the respondent No.2 and by the Lokayukta. He therefore submits that the entire proceedings leading up to the suspension of the petitioner have to be annulled. 4. Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that this writ petition has now become infructuous as after the petitioner was suspended from service pending an enquiry, retired District Judge was appointed to enquire into the allegations and that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 23.03.2016, holding that the petitioner is not guilty of any of the illegalities alleged against him. He further submits that this report is placed before the respondent No.2 who in turn placed it before the respondent No.1 and that this report is yet to be accepted. He
Decision
therefore contends that the writ petition has spent in itself and no orders are necessary. He however contends that the petitioner be directed to pursue the issue before the respondent No.1 regarding acceptance of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the relief sought for in this writ petition has spent in itself in as much as an Enquiry Officer appointed post the suspension of the petitioner from service, has submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from all charges. Therefore, as the matter now stands, the report is to be accepted by the respondent No.1 which would put a quietus to the issue. As the respondent No.1 has not accepted the report for more than 9 years, it is only appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by directing the consideration of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the event the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is accepted, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, by treating the period of suspension from service as "on duty". 7. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to communicate with the respondent No.1 for consideration of the enquiry report submitted by the retired District Judge. It is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10447 WP No. 22384 of 2015 always open for the petitioner to come back to this Court, if the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is not accepted. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35