Andanayya vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Agricultural Sciences and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has called in question the order passed by Respondent No. 3-Administrative Officer, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, transferring the petitioner along with his post to the Agricultural College, Vijayapur and directing him to report for duty to the Dean, College of Agriculture at Vijayapur.

I have heard Sri. Ravi Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.L. Patil, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and also Smt. K. Vidyavati, the learned AGA for respondent No. 5, and perused the records.

Perusal of the records reveal that the Respondent No. 3-Administrative Officer has issued Article of Charges along with the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct to the petitioner vide Annexure-A dated 14.09.2013 making as many as seven charges specifically alleging that the petitioner has failed to take/engage classes to teach the Course ''AET-301 Crop Pests and their Management" to under graduate students at Agricultural College, Hanumanamatti, and he caused great inconvenience and loss to the students thereby he failed in his duty and has behaved irresponsibly and exhibited disobedience to the order of superior authority. There are seven imputations of misconduct alleged in the said document (Annexure-A). The 3rd Respondent has expressed his desire to examine five witnesses as per the list and also produced seven documents.

After receipt of the said charge memo and also statement of imputations of misconduct, the petitioner has filed his objections as per Annexure-B. He has not only denied the allegations made against him stating that reasons for such allegations are not proper, but also expressed his inconvenience. After the said objections are filed, as some of the documents were not furnished to him, the petitioner requested for furnishing of the documents. As per Annexure-C, three documents were furnished to him i.e.,-

"i) Letter No. Dean (Agri)/Aca/1009/2013-14 dated 04.06.2013 of the Dean (Agri), AC, Hanumanamatti.

ii) Requirement of teacher to offer courses for 1st Sem. 2013-14 of the Dean (Agri), AC, Hanumanamatti.

iii) Annexure - Schedule"

Even prior to receipt of objections, the Disciplinary Authority constituted an Enquiry Committee consisting of four members viz., Dr. A.R. Alagawadi, Dean (PGS), UAS Dharwad (Chairman), Dr. C.S. Hunshal, Dean (Hsc), R.J. Scc. College, Dharwad (Member),, Dr. S.I. Madiwalar Dean (For.) College of Forestry, Sirsi, (Member) and SRi. G.S. Kittumath, AAO, UAS, Dharwad (Presenting Officer) and the meeting of the said committee was held on 15.05.2014. It appears the Enquiry Committee has recommended in the following terms,-

"It has been proved that Dr. A.S. Vastrad, Deputy Director of Students Welfare, College of Agriculture, Dharwad has failed to give any convincing and satisfactory explanation for the dereliction of duty and thereby he had shown disobedience to the order of superiors. Therefore, the committee has made a recommendation for the transfer of the petitioner along with the post to any of the teaching campus."

On the basis of the committee report, on 20.07.2015 vide Annexure-E, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned orders. The Disciplinary Committee report does not disclose whether after objections have been filed by the petitioner, any proceedings have been conducted by them holding any enquiry as such, as contemplated under law by providing opportunity to the petitioner to question such proceedings. The report shows that the committee has only considered the complaint lodged as per Annexure-A i.e., Article of Charges and Statement of Imputations of misconduct and the objections filed by the petitioner and only on the basis of those two documents, it appears the findings have been recorded. No person has been examined to prove the Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations of Misconduct, though in Annexure-A it is specifically mentioned that there are five witnesses to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and also in support of the Articles of Charges issued, there are seven documents as proof. But, neither those documents were not produced before the committee by the Presenting Officer nor any witnesses have been examined and the Committee has not provided any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on his side. The Committee only took note of the objections filed by the petitioner and directly come to the conclusion that dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner has been proved. The committee report also discloses that the Committee has very categorically casted aspiration on the petitioner''s responsibility and it has stated that,-

"Dr. Vastrad is a highly qualified and a senior teacher has tried to shirk his responsibility by disobeying the orders of the University to offer the course ''Crop Pests and their Management (AET 301) at College of Agriculture, Hanumanamatti. This also shows that he had no concern for the welfare of the students and his commitment to the duty. His letter to the University in this respect have registered only a sense of hatred towards establishment and thus has violated the discipline and has committed dereliction of duty."

In order to draw this inference, the complaint and the objections have been relied upon. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner to explain whether any of his conduct alleged amounts to any misconduct. Therefore, the principles of justice has been utterly violated so far the petitioner''s case is concerned. Without following the procedure as contemplated under law i.e., to say after serving of Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations of Misconduct after receiving the objections to the above said charges by the petitioner, and after constitution of committee, the committee has to formulate the points for consideration and by fixing the burden of proving the charges on the party who is making allegations and by providing opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, and also for cross-examination of the witnesses and thereafter hearing the parties, the committee would have passed the orders.

Though Sri. K.L. Patil, the learned Counsel tried to convince this court that it is not punishment at all, but it is only a transfer from one place to another, but the said argument, in my opinion, is not tenable because, the tone and tenure of the report of the Disciplinary Committee discloses that they have made imputations that the petitioner is irresponsible and he is shirking from the responsibility and he disobeyed the orders of the superiors, as such, there is dereliction of duty on his part. All the said allegations are not mere allegations, but they will have their own serious impact on the future service conditions, as it would affect or cast aspersion on the conduct of the employee. That should be done only after following due procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this is not a mere transfer simpliciter, but it is based on certain serious allegations against him and those allegations are definitely affect the service conditions of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that without following such legal procedure contemplated under law, the committee would not have been suggested the punishment and only on the basis of such report the order should not have been passed by the 3rd respondent. Further added to the above said circumstances, after the committee has given report, the 3rd respondent (Disciplinary Authority), the authority has not applied its mind and it has simply passed the order.

In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the following order is passed:--

"The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 20.07.2015 bearing No. AO/Est-V/Vas/1586.B/15-16 issued by Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-E and the report of the Disciplinary Committee Meeting Held on 15.05.2014 (Annexure-D_ are also hereby quashed. By virtue of quashing of the order, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to restore the original position of the petitioner and to permit him to discharge the duties in his original place as sought for, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, the respondents are at liberty take appropriate action, if necessary against the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law."