Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 857 (KAR)

Chandrama Kanagali v. State of Karnataka

2014-09-26

H.BILLAPPA

body2014
Judgment : 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the 1st respondent vide annexure-P. 2. By the impugned order at Annexure-P the petitioner has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka State Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore, (for short 'Music University') in the place of the 5th respondent and 5th respondent has been appointed as Registrar of Karnatka University, Dharwad, in the place of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioner was appointed as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 6.9.2013. It is stated, the petitioner had to confront with the 2nd respondent on various matters relating to the affairs of the University as well as appointment of teachers. In the month of October 2013 interviews for were conducted for various posts like Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor without seeking the presence of the Registrar who is the Member Secretary of the Board of Appointment. The 2nd respondent made appointments to 59 teaching posts for the period from October 2013 to June 2014. In none of these appointments the proceedings contain the signature of the Registrar. 5. It is stated, the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Dharwad, had sent a communication dated 28.5.2014 asking the petitioner to furnish certain documents relating to the alleged financial irregularities committed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Karnataka University. The petitioner in response to the said communication obtained the assistance of the Legal Coordinator of the University to furnish the necessary documents to the office of the Lokayukta, Dharwad. Upon knowing this, the 2nd respondent started harassing the petitioner as well as the legal coordinator. The 2nd respondent instructed the concerned sections of the University not to cooperate with the petitioner. In the process there was delay in providing information to the Lokayukta police. Consequently, the petitioner received phone calls from the Lokayukta police. The petitioner was compelled to send a communication dated 11.6.14 to the Lokayukta Police informing the progress made in the matter and constituting of a Sub-Committee by the 2nd respondent to collect the information and furnish the report to the Lokayukta. The 2nd respondent rebuked the petitioner and made an endorsement on the letter dated 11.6.2014 stating that 'Let them write the reminder'. The 2nd respondent rebuked the petitioner and made an endorsement on the letter dated 11.6.2014 stating that 'Let them write the reminder'. Thereafter, the Lokayukta sent another communication requiring the petitioner to send information called for at the earliest. It was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent made his own endorsement on the said letter. It is stated, this was the starting point for the 2nd respondent to hit back the petitioner with vengeance. 6. It is stated, the 2nd respondent in collusion with the 3rd respondent Dr.HC.Pothe, Registrar (Evaluation) saw that a frivolous notice was issued to the petitioner containing frivolous allegations in respect of answer scripts of M.Phil examination in English which was held during March 2013 when the petitioner was the Chairman of the Post-Graduate Department of Studies in English, Karnataka University, Dharwad. It is stated, with malicious intention the 3rd respondent made a stranger by name Noushad Bijapur of Belgaum to file an application under the RTI Act and furnished a malicious and irrelevant information through letter dated 14.7.2014 which is contrary to law. 7. It is stated, the 2nd respondent would be completing his tenure as Vice Chancellor of the Karnataka University, Dharwad on 24.10.2014. The tenure is less than three months. According to the order of the His Excellency the Chancellor dated 13.10.1998 the Vice Chancellors are prohibited from making recruitments, taking policy and financial decisions which adversely affect the interest of the University. Despite the existing order of the Chancellor, the 2nd respondent vide U.O. Note dated 1.8.2014 induced an element of force on the petitioner to issue communication to the applicants calling for interview for the backlog teaching posts. This compelled the petitioner to send a communication on 1.8.14 to the first respondent seeking his clarification in the matter. 8. It is stated, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in collusion maliciously moved an item in the Syndicate Meeting held on 01.08.2014 concerning the matter relating to non-furnishing of M.Phil answer papers to Naushad Bijapur of Belgaum under the RTI Act 2005 and resolved to constitute a Five Member Committee to look into the alleged lapse on the part of the petitioner. It was also resolved until the said Committee submits its report to request the Government to direct the petitioner to go on leave. It was also resolved until the said Committee submits its report to request the Government to direct the petitioner to go on leave. The minutes of the meeting is signed by the 4th respondent who in fact is not a member of the Syndicate and had not attended the Syndicate Meeting held on 1.8.2014. It is stated, the petitioner had recorded the minutes of the Syndicate Meeting in the capacity of the Member Secretary. Further it is stated the 2nd respondent communicated the UO Note on 1.8.2014 to the petitioner stating that in view of unathorised absence of the petitioner from the office and as per the resolution of the Syndicate a Committee was constituted and 4th respondent Dr.C. Rajasekhar, the Dean, Faculty of Law is appointed as in- charge Registrar in the place of the petitioner. 9. It is stated, the petitioner had never left the Office of the Registrar in the noon on 1.8.2014. The petitioner had conducted and recorded proceedings of the Syndicate meeting from 12.30 noon to 3.30 p.m. on 1.8.14 in the capacity of the Member Secretary and left the place at 4.30 p.m. to visit the ongoing construction works in the University campus. The 2nd respondent noticing the absence of the petitioner dishonestly issued the said UO note. It is stated, the petitioner through her letter dated 2.8.2014 has intimated the 2nd respondent that she continues to hold the Office of the Registrar. The 2nd respondent illegally authorized the Deputy Registrar of the University vide communication dated 09.08.2014 to look after the entire matters relating to the academic matters as additional charge. The 2nd respondent being the Vice- Chancellor of the University has continuously indulging in harassing the petitioner who is the first woman Registrar of the University. The 2nd respondent ultimately saw that frivolous resolutions were passed in the Syndicate Meeting held on 1.8.2014 appointing the two committees consisting of the same members to look into the allegations pertaining to the answer scripts of the M.Phil. Examination in English and the claim for vehicle repair bills without even seeking explanation from the petitioner. 10. The 2nd respondent by sending false communications to the 1st respondent vide letters dated 2.8.14, 6.8.14, 9.8.14 and 13.8.14 has ultimately saw that by order dated 1.9.14 the petitioner has been unlawfully transferred to the Music University, Mysore. Examination in English and the claim for vehicle repair bills without even seeking explanation from the petitioner. 10. The 2nd respondent by sending false communications to the 1st respondent vide letters dated 2.8.14, 6.8.14, 9.8.14 and 13.8.14 has ultimately saw that by order dated 1.9.14 the petitioner has been unlawfully transferred to the Music University, Mysore. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2014 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 11. The first respondent has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Examiners to conduct M.Phil. Examination in English. After completion of valuation, the petitioner requested to announce the result of the examination. As per the regulation of the University, the papers were required to be valued by a second examiner. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to send the papers to the second examiner enlisted by the University as Board of Examiners. The petitioner instead of sending the papers to the 2nd Examiner from among the names empanelled by the University has referred the matter to an outsider for second valuation. It is contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the University. On receipt of the marks statement of the 2nd examiner the University has announced M.Phil Examination results. 12. It is stated, as per the regulation of the University, after the results are announced, the answer papers of the students are required to be sent back to the Registrar (Evaluation) for preserving them. The petitioner has not complied with the Regulation No.3. Therefore, reminders were given to her. But, the petitioner has not responded. As such, the matter was referred to the Syndicate. In the Syndicate Meeting held on 7.6.2014 the petitioner has produced a letter to show that she had sent the answer papers to the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Examination Section. But as per the regulation, the papers are required to be sent to the confidential section of the Examination Department. It is stated, the signature found on the letter was not the signature of any of the employees working in the GAD Section. There was no entry in the Inward Register maintained by the GAD Section of the Examination Department. Apart from this, the petitioner was also involved in claiming the fake bills with regard to the repairs of the private vehicle. 13. There was no entry in the Inward Register maintained by the GAD Section of the Examination Department. Apart from this, the petitioner was also involved in claiming the fake bills with regard to the repairs of the private vehicle. 13. The petitioner had requested the University to allow her to use her own vehicle so as to safeguard her safety by avoiding using a University vehicle driven by a driver. The petitioner was using Maruti 800 Car for her personal use. But, she had submitted bills pertaining to a Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No.KA.25-Z-7426 claiming repair charges to the tune of Rs.39,646.32. On verification it was found that the Scorpio Jeep does not belong to the petitioner. 14. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 1.8.14 has taken up the above subjects and has constituted two different Committees to investigate into the irregularities. The committee in its first meeting resolved to request the Vice Chancellor for conducting fair and impartial inquiry against the petitioner and the petitioner shall not function as the Registrar of the Karnataka University during the period of enquiry. In this background, the Vice Chancellor, Karnataka University, Dhrwad, has requested the State Government to make an alternative arrangement so that an impartial enquiry is conducted. The Registrar is the custodian of the records as per Section 17(2)(i) of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000. The Registrar is also the Executive Head of the University who deals with the functioning of the University. If the petitioner is allowed to function as Registrar there is every possibility that the required documents would not be made available to the Enquiry Committee. Taking this into consideration and considering the request of the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka University, Dharwad, the State Government has appointed Prof.Y.S. Siddegowda as Registrar of the Karnataka University, Dharwad and the petitioner has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka State Music University, Mysore. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 15. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed their Statement of Objections contending that the writ petition is liable to be rejected in limine. It is stated, the petitioner has suppressed true and material facts. The allegation that five times the post of Registrar of the University had undergone change in a span of one year is denied as false statement. It is stated, the 2nd respondent does not have any vengeance towards the petitioner. It is stated, the petitioner has suppressed true and material facts. The allegation that five times the post of Registrar of the University had undergone change in a span of one year is denied as false statement. It is stated, the 2nd respondent does not have any vengeance towards the petitioner. It is denied that the 2nd respondent has not furnished information/records to the Lokayukta Authority intentionally. It is stated, Annexures-B and D produced by the petitioner clearly show that the information sought by the Lokayukta pertains to the Development Officer of Karnataka University, Dharwad, and not to the 2nd respondent. No where it is stated that the information or records sought by the Lokayukta Police relate to the 2nd respondent. It is stated, the second respondent brought the subject matter of seeking information by the Lokayukta Authority to the notice of the Syndicate of the Karnataka University. By way of Resolution No.16 dated 7.6.14 the Syndicate of Karnataka University, Dharwad, has resolved to constitute a Committee to examine and submit a report to submit the documents and records to the Lokayukta Authority. Accordingly, the entire records/documents with the committee report has been submitted to the Lokayukta authorities through communication dated 3.7.14 under proper acknowledgment. The petitioner has suppressed the said fact. It is stated, in response to the telephonic conversation the 2nd respondent has made endorsement on annexures-C and D suitably based on the true state of affairs. It is denied that the 2nd respondent has prevented the petitioner from supplying the information and documents to the Lokayukta authority. 16. It is contended that the stand of the petitioner that the Government has no right or authority or power to appoint the Registrar of the University is baseless. The appointment order produced by the petitioner shows it has been issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and signed by Under Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Education Department (Universities) and not issued by His Excellency the Chancellor or the Governer. Therefore the ground urged by the petitioner that the Government has no right or authority for appointment of Registrar is baseless. 17. Annexure-P has been issued as per Section 17(1) of the Act and in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and signed by the Under Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Education Department (University). Therefore, Annexure 'P' is legal and valid. 17. Annexure-P has been issued as per Section 17(1) of the Act and in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and signed by the Under Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Education Department (University). Therefore, Annexure 'P' is legal and valid. It is stated, the State Government is the competent authority in appoint the Registrar. No where in the Act there is any prohibition to the Vice Chancellor to make recruitments, take policy or financial decisions as alleged by the petitioner. Under a special circumstance a direction has been issued to the Vice Chancellor of Rani Channamma University, Belgaum, as a special case. No direction has been issued by the Government prohibiting the University from making recruitment to backlog posts. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is baseless. 18. It is stated, the petitioner has committed serious lapse by not returning the M.Phil. papers of the academic year 2012-2013 after assessment within the stipulated time to the Examination Confidential Section thereby the petitioner has failed to discharge her duties properly. It amounts to misconduct. The petitioner was acting as the Chair person of English Department and BOE. Therefore, the petitioner was the lawful custodian of all the answer scripts and she has not returned the same. The petitioner in violation of the regulations got the answer scripts valued by a person whose name was not in the list of examiners. The petitioner got assessed the answer scripts of M.Phil. Papers by name Dr.Kannan of Karnataka State University, Bijapur whose name does not find a place in the Panel of P.G.Examners, English Subject, Karnataka University, Dhrwad. As the petitioner has not returned the answer papers to the Examination Confidential Section in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the Syndicate of Karnataka University was pleased to resolve to hold an enquiry in the matter as per Resolution No.30 dated 1.8.2014. 19. Further, the petitioner being a responsible person and holding a responsible post has made an attempt to claim false bills for repairing private vehicle saying that the said private vehicle belongs to the petitioner. As per the Syndicate Resolution No.7 dated 26.7.2013 the Syndicate has resolved only to provide fuel to the personal vehicle of the petitioner. No where in the said resolution it has been provided to pay the bill of repairs. The petitioner has claimed repair bills for the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.25/Z-7426. As per the Syndicate Resolution No.7 dated 26.7.2013 the Syndicate has resolved only to provide fuel to the personal vehicle of the petitioner. No where in the said resolution it has been provided to pay the bill of repairs. The petitioner has claimed repair bills for the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.25/Z-7426. The said vehicle does not belong to the petitioner and not hired by the University for the use of the petitioner. The vehicle belongs to one Nagaraj Fakkirappa Yaligar. It is not permissible to pay the repair charges or bills pertaining to the private vehicle which is not concerned with the University. As per Resolution No.4 dated 1.8.2014 tabled with the permission of the Chair, the Syndicate has resolved to constitute a Committee to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner being enraged by this has started insubordination to the 2nd respondent and made efforts to stall the smooth functioning of the day to day affairs of the University. 20. As the petitioner was bound to face enquiry and to avoid interference or non-cooperation in the enquiry, the Syndicate Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 2.8.14 resolved to request the 2nd respondent to make alternative arrangement for the post of Registrar until the enquiry is over. Otherwise, it would not be possible to conduct just and fair enquiry. 21. Based on the resolution the 2nd respondent has requested the Government to appoint the 5th respondent as Registrar of Karnataka University in the place of the petitioner and vice-versa the petitioner in the place of the 5th respondent. Therefore, there is nothing malicious and annexure-P is legal, valid and strictly in accordance with law. 22. It is stated, under Section 17(1) of the Act, the first respondent is the competent authority to appoint the Registrar of University in Karnataka State. Therefore, the 1st respondent has appointed the petitioner as the Registrar of Karnataka State Dr.Gangubai Hangal Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore, in the place of the 5th respondent and 5th respondent has been appointed as the Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. The impugned order is legal and valid. The petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order at Annexure-P as it is the prerogative of the Government under Section 17(1) of the Act to appoint any person as Registrar of Universities. The impugned order is legal and valid. The petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order at Annexure-P as it is the prerogative of the Government under Section 17(1) of the Act to appoint any person as Registrar of Universities. Pursuant to annexure-P, the 5th respondent has been relieved from his duties as Registrar of Karnataka State Music University, Mysore, on 1.9.2014 and has assumed charge as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 2.9.2014. The 5th respondent is discharging his duties as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. 23. It is stated, the petitioner has been relieved from her post as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 2.9.2014. On the same day at about 11.30 a.m. the 5th respondent has assumed charge in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner did not turn-up and abstained from the office. The petitioner has sent leave letter to the Vice Chancellor requesting for sanction of half-a-day's leave in the forenoon on 2.9.2014. The same has been sent and received by the office of Vice Chancellor by 1.40 p.m. on 2.9.2014. By that time the 5th respondent had assumed the charge. The endorsement has been issued to the petitioner stating that the 5th respondent has assumed the charge as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. 24. It is stated, the petitioner has misconceived and misconstrued the impugned order as a transfer order. The impugned order is an appointment order and not the transfer order. The ground urged by the petitioner is baseless and opposed to the facts. As enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner she has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka State Music University, Mysore. It is justified in law. 25. The petitioner has filed a Memo dated 11.9.2014 placing the notification issued by His Excellency Governor of Karnataka and Chancellor of Universities appointing Justice B. Padmaraj, Hon'ble former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, to hold enquiry into the allegations made against the 2nd respondent. The allegations made against the 2nd respondent are vindictive and false allegations. The 2nd respondent has not committed any error of malfunctioning or maladministration. The allegations are politically motivated. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 have prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 26. The 5th respondent has filed his statement of objections contending that the impugned order is legal, valid and it is in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent has not committed any error of malfunctioning or maladministration. The allegations are politically motivated. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 have prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 26. The 5th respondent has filed his statement of objections contending that the impugned order is legal, valid and it is in accordance with law. It is contended that the State Government is the competent authority to appoint the Registrar of University and appointing a Registrar is the prerogative of the State Government. The first respondent has appointed the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka State Music University, Mysore, in the place of the 5th respondent and 5th respondent has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, in the place of the petitioner by exercising power under Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 27. It is stated, pursuant to the impugned order the 5th respondent has assumed charge as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on the forenoon of 2.9.2014 in accordance with law and has reported to his duties. The 5th respondent is discharging his duties as Registrar of Karnataka Univeristy, Dharwad. The 5th respondent has convened the Syndicate Special Meeting of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 3.9.2014 at 11.30 a.m as per the directions of the 2nd respondent. After assuming charge, the 5th respondent has attended the Syndicate Meeting held on 3.9.2014 and has affixed his signature as Member of the Syndicate. The 5th respondent after assuming charge has signed several documents as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. The petitioner has been relieved from her duties on 2.9.2014 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has misconceived and misconstrued the impugned order as Transfer Order. Plain reading of the impugned order shows that it is an Appointment Order and not the Transfer Order. The grounds urged by the petitioner are baseless. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 28. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the impugned order is tainted with malafides and it is without jurisdiction. Further he submitted that the petitioner furnished information to the Lokayukta police regarding several irregularities committed by the 2nd respondent and refused to issue interview letters as directed by the 2nd respondent and sought for clarification from the Government. This enraged the 2nd respondent. He also submitted that the impugned order is tainted with malafides and it is without jurisdiction. Further he submitted that the petitioner furnished information to the Lokayukta police regarding several irregularities committed by the 2nd respondent and refused to issue interview letters as directed by the 2nd respondent and sought for clarification from the Government. This enraged the 2nd respondent. At the instance of the 2nd respondent the impugned order has been passed transferring the petitioner to Music University. The impugned order in essence is a Transfer Order. It cannot be sustained in law. It is only the Chancellor who can transfer an employee under Section 58 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Government is without jurisdiction and tainted with malafides. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 29. The learned Additional AG appearing for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the impugned order is an appointment order under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is within the power of the Government to appoint Registrars of Universities in the State. The Government exercising its power under Section 17(1) of the Act has appointed the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka State Music University, Mysore, and 5th respondent as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, and it does not call for interference. Further he submitted that the Registrar is not an employee of the University. Section 58 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the University employees. Therefore, Section 58 of the Act is not applicable to the petitioner. As enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner is appointed as Registrar of Music University. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 30. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the impugned order is passed under Section 17(1) of the Act by the Government. It is justified in law. Section 58 of the Act is not applicable to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has no malice or ill-will against the petitioner. It is the 2nd respondent who has sent the name of the petitioner for appointment as Registrar. The 2nd respondent has only communicated the resolution of the Syndicate to the petitioner. The records sought by the Lokayukta Police are sent to the Lokayukta police through the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has no malice or ill-will against the petitioner. It is the 2nd respondent who has sent the name of the petitioner for appointment as Registrar. The 2nd respondent has only communicated the resolution of the Syndicate to the petitioner. The records sought by the Lokayukta Police are sent to the Lokayukta police through the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation that the 2nd respondent prevented the petitioner from sending records to the Lokayukta Police is baseless. The allegation of malafides is also baseless and incorrect. The impugned order does not call for interference. 31. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 32. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order at annexure-P calls for interference. 33. It is relevant to note, the petitioner has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 6.9.2013. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka State Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore. The 5th respondent has been appointed as the Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. The impugned order refers to four letters dated 2.8.14, 6.8.14, 9.8.14 and 13.8.14 addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent. Through letter dated 6.8.14 the 2nd respondent has requested the first respondent to send the petitioner on leave. Through letter dated 9.8.2014, the 2nd respondent has requested the 1st respondent to direct the petitioner to go on leave until enquiry is over, otherwise, there can be no smooth administration as well as peace in the campus. Several allegations have been made against the petitioner. Thereafter, through letter 13.8.14 the 2nd respondent has requested the first respondent to initiate action immediately, otherwise, it would be difficult to function in the University. It is stated in the letter dated 13.8.2014 that the 2nd respondent met Dr.Y.S.Siddegowda, Registrar of Karnataka State Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore, on 12.8.14 when he came to Karnataka University as a subject expert for selection of the Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology. Dr.Y. S. Siddegowda expressed his willingness to work as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. The 2nd respondent has suggested to the Government to appoint the petitioner as the Registrar of Music and Performing Arts University and 5th respondent Dr.Y.S. Siddegowda as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. Dr.Y. S. Siddegowda expressed his willingness to work as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. The 2nd respondent has suggested to the Government to appoint the petitioner as the Registrar of Music and Performing Arts University and 5th respondent Dr.Y.S. Siddegowda as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed appointing the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka State Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore and 5th respondent as the Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. 34. The background facts which led to passing of the impugned order needs to be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, on 6.9.2013. It is stated, the petitioner had to confront with the 2nd respondent on various aspects. In October, 2013, interviews were conducted for various posts like Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. The petitioner being the Member Secretary her presence was required. It is stated, without seeking her presence the appointments were made and her signature was not taken. Thereafter, it is stated, the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Dharwad, sent communication dated 28.5.2014 asking the petitioner to furnish certain information regarding the alleged financial irregularities committed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has addressed communication dated 11.6.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayoukta, Dharwad, stating that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 7.6.14 has resolved to constitute a Committee consisting of three members to look into the matter by obtaining records from the concerned sections and to submit the report to the Vice-Chancellor at the earliest and in turn the Office of the Vice -Chancellor would send the same to the Office of the Lokayukta. In the said letter the 2nd respondent has endorsed stating that 'Let them write the reminder'. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Dharwad, has sent communication dated 17.6.14 requesting to send the information as early as possible. In the said letter the 2nd respondent has endorsed "Write a letter explaining that we are in the process of collecting documents from various sections." 35. On 3.7.2014 the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Police Commissioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, Dharwad, submitting the documents and records along with the Committee Report. In the said letter the 2nd respondent has endorsed "Write a letter explaining that we are in the process of collecting documents from various sections." 35. On 3.7.2014 the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Police Commissioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, Dharwad, submitting the documents and records along with the Committee Report. On the same day i.e. 3.7.2014 the Registrar (Evaluation) has addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that within two days from the date of receipt of the letter the petitioner to furnish necessary papers of M.Phil Part-I English examination Paper-I and II. On 14.7.2014 the Registrar (Evaluation) i.e. the 3rd respondent has furnished information to one Naushad Bijapur of Belgaum under RTI Act with regard to M.Phil Examination held in July 2013. 36. On 1.8.2014 at 11.30 a.m. the Syndicate meeting has been held. The petitioner has participated in the meeting as Member Secretary. When item No.30 relating to the M.Phil answer papers was taken up for discussion, the petitioner has been asked to remain absent. The Syndicate has resolved to constitute an Enquiry Committee and a Committee has been constituted. It was also resolved until the Committee submits its report to request the Government to direct the Registrar to go on leave. With permission of the Chair, Item No.4 with regard to the bills submitted by the petitioner regarding repairing of private vehicle has been taken up and it has been resolved to constitute a Committee to enquire and submit its report to the Vice Chancellor. The Committee has been constituted. It is stated the 4th respondent has signed as In-Charge Registrar though he was not a member of the Syndicate. 37. On 1.8.2014 the 2nd respondent has communicated a U.O. Note to the petitioner stating that in view of the enquiry committee constituted by the Syndicate on 1.8.2014 under Resolution No.30 and in view of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner on 1.8.2014 and also to have a fair enquiry, Dr.C. Rajashekhar, Dean, Faculty of Law will be in-charge Registrar from 1.8.2014 (afternoon) until further orders. The petitioner has participated in the Syndicate Meeting which started at 11.30 a.m. on 1.8.2014. It is stated, the petitioner recorded the minutes of the meeting. The petitioner has participated in the Syndicate Meeting which started at 11.30 a.m. on 1.8.2014. It is stated, the petitioner recorded the minutes of the meeting. On the same day U.O. Note dated 1.8.2014 has been communicated to the petitioner stating that in view of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner on 1.8.14 (afternoon) and for fair enquiry Dr.C. Rajashekhar, Dean, Faculty of Law will be the In-charge Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, from 1.8.2014 (afternoon) until further orders. This indicates the haste with which the 2nd respondent has acted against the petitioner. On the next day, the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 2.8.14 to the 2nd respondent saying that she was not unauthorisedly absent on 1.8.2014 as claimed by the 2nd respondent. Her job is not confined to four walls. She is required to attend to various duties. It is a class of instance of continuous harassment to the petitioner as the petitioner is the first woman Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, and she is also the first SC woman Registrar. Thereafter, on 2.8.2014 the Committee has resolved to request the 2nd respondent to make alternative arrangement for the post of Registrar until enquiry is over. The 2nd respondent has addressed letters dated 2.8.2014, 6.8.2014, 9.8.2014 and 13.8.2014 to the first respondent. The contents of the letters dated 2.8.2014 and 6.8.2014 are not available. However, through letter dated 6.8.14 the 2nd respondent has requested the first respondent to send the petitioner on leave. Through letter dated 9.8.2014 the 2nd respondent has requested the first respondent to direct the Registrar to go on leave until enquiry is over. Several allegations have been made against the petitioner. Through letter dated 13.8.2014 the 2nd respondent has suggested the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka Music University, Mysore, in the place of the 5th respondent Dr.Y.Siddegowda and to appoint 5th respondent Dr.Y. Siddegowda as the Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. It is stated, the 2nd respondent met Dr.Y.S.Siddegowda, Registrar of Music University on 12.8.14 when he came over to Karnataka University as subject expert for selection of Professor of Sociology. He is willing to work as Registrar of Karnataka University. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has suggested the name of 5th respondent to appoint him as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. It is clear, the impugned order has been passed at the instance of the 2nd respondent. He is willing to work as Registrar of Karnataka University. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has suggested the name of 5th respondent to appoint him as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad. It is clear, the impugned order has been passed at the instance of the 2nd respondent. Though the order indicates that the petitioner has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka Music University, Mysore, and 5th respondent has been appointed as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, in essence it is shifting of the petitioner from Karnataka University, Dharwad, to the Karnataka State Music University, Mysore. The background in which the impugned order has been passed is tainted with malafides. There is no application of mind. In essence, the impugned order is nothing but shifting of the petitioner to Music University in guise of appointment. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 38. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 1.9.2014 vide Annexure 'P' appointing the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka State Music and Performing Arts University, Mysore, and 5th respondent Dr.Y.S. Siddegowda as the Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad, is hereby quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to continue the petitioner as Registrar of Karnataka University, Dharwad.