ORDER Petitioner No.1 and 2 are Scientists. They are involved in conducting astrophysics observations through the Himalayan Chandra Telescope (in short ‘the HCT’) and other observatories established by the Government of India. Petitioner No.1 was issued with communication dated 22.11.2013 by respondent No.1 – Indian Institute of Astrophysics through its Director, barring/limiting her from accessing HCT observatory for a period of one year commencing from 01.12.2013. She has been found guilty, of using, as a coauthor of a research article titled ‘Supernova 2012aw – a high-energy clone of archetypal Type IIP SN 1999em’, the HCT data without taking prior consent from the Observer of the HCT. Petitioner’s intention to use the said data for her research paper was also not informed to the person in charge, is the finding recorded. The bar of one year to have access to Observatory was passed on the alleged admission made by Petitioner No.1 during the so called interrogatory by the Director, that it was not fair to obtain data in the manner it was done by her. 2. The records, so also the communication at Annexure-A, do not disclose that Petitioner No.1 was notified of the allegations of unfair conduct nor was she given an opportunity to have her say in the matter either by filing written response or by availing opportunity to make any statement before the Director. Indeed, notice issued to the petitioner, which is produced at Annexure-Q, would only call upon her, as also other members and certain others to go over for a brief meeting on HCT data usage at 2.00 pm on Monday (02.09.2013) to the office of the Director. Thus, it is evident that though a meeting was convened petitioner was not informed why the said meeting was convened. 3. After the said meeting proceedings were drawn. In the proceedings of the meeting drawn by the Professor-in-charge Mr. T.P. Prabhu, which is produced at Annexure-R, it is recorded that Petitioner No.1 had agreed and admitted that it was not fair on her part to obtain data in the manner she had resorted to but had justified it stating that she was unable to obtain the data by fair means eliciting cooperation from most of the principal investigators of HCT and thus she had confessed her guilt. It is based on this proceedings recorded by the Professor-in-charge Mr. It is based on this proceedings recorded by the Professor-in-charge Mr. T.P. Prabhu, the Director proceeded to take decision to bar Petitioner No.1 to gain access to HCT for a period of one year because of her unfair conduct. 4. Petitioner No.1 filed an appeal to the Governing Council of respondent No.1 – Institute. Acting on the said appeal the governing council constituted a two member committee to examine the matter including the legality and correctness of the ban imposed against her. The Committee went into the matter and by Annexure-B report found that there was scope for benefit of doubt to be given to Petitioner No.1. It took note of the fact that Petitioner No.1 had some problem with the Observatory Personnel in CREST Observatories. It also observed that there was a competent team lead by one Dr. Anupama, who had high reputation in the field, petitioner might have felt that she would not get cooperation in the matter of collecting new data and had therefore, resorted to getting to the HCT achieves through observational assistants. The Committee further felt that in case if two parties wanted data on the same source, the Observatory-in-charge must be kept informed by the HTAC Chair and a fair judgment should be taken as to who should be given priority and whether data should be released simultaneously to both parties. The Committee Members found that there were enough parallels in other observatories and strategies could be adopted immediately, to avoid such situations in future. It also made an observation that guidelines in this regard could be evolved immediately to avoid such problems. It therefore, came to the conclusion that explanation offered by Petitioner No.1 in her defence regardless of its truth or otherwise entailed benefit of doubt to be given to her. However, as she was breaching the tradition of consultation and should have proceeded to verify the authorship of the data, to avoid misunderstandings, the ban imposed had to be reduced to six months. 5. Based on the report of the Committee, an order by way of communication dated 02.04.2014 has been issued by the Director imposing six months ban against Petitioner No.1 from gaining access to the Observatory. It is these orders that have been challenged before this Court by Petitioner No.1. 6. 5. Based on the report of the Committee, an order by way of communication dated 02.04.2014 has been issued by the Director imposing six months ban against Petitioner No.1 from gaining access to the Observatory. It is these orders that have been challenged before this Court by Petitioner No.1. 6. Petitioner No.2 is the co-investigator along with Petitioner No.1, who has undertaken the research work and the result of the ban imposed on Petitioner No.1 has allegedly affected the interest of Petitioner No.2 also, therefore, as he has also been denied access to the Observatory, he has joined Petitioner No.1 in challenging the impugned orders. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Adithya Chatterjee appearing for petitioners has very strenuously and ably contended that no inquiry has been held by the Director before imposing the ban vide Ann.A – communication and Petitioner No.1 was not given any opportunity to have her say and therefore, the communication Ann.A is illegal. He contends that the report at Ann.B of the Committee constituted by the Governing Council, which is in the nature of appellate proceedings, records a finding that Petitioner No.1 was entitled for benefit of doubt because of lack of evidence in the matter and also because of the statement made by Petitioner No.1 that had she known that the data were under inspection from the competitor, she would not have considered using the said data. Having thus exonerated Petitioner No.1 imposition of the ban to gain access to the Observatory for six months is totally illegal, is the contention. 8. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners referring to the RTI quarries made by the petitioner and the response given to the said quarries, produced as enclosures to the writ petition that as per the information supplied by respondent No.1 – Institution, ‘by convention, data right rests with the proposer(s) who execute observations’. Thus the same data set is not provided to more than one group or team of observers and scientists and that no policy document existed. This information obtained by the petitioner further reveals that the convention followed by the Committee is that the Chair/Member withdraws from deliberations of his/her proposal being discussed and finalized in the Committee. It is alleged by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case same data was provided to another group by respondent No.1 – Institution. 9. This information obtained by the petitioner further reveals that the convention followed by the Committee is that the Chair/Member withdraws from deliberations of his/her proposal being discussed and finalized in the Committee. It is alleged by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case same data was provided to another group by respondent No.1 – Institution. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also urged that though the ban imposed preventing access of the Petitioner for six months has already spent itself out the impugned decision taken by respondent No.1 has seriously affected the reputation of Petitioner No.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel that Petitioner No.1 being a Scientist having plenty of opportunities for doing further academic studies both in India and abroad will have to face serious difficulties in her carrier advancement in the wake of the impugned orders/decisions that have found her guilty of misconduct. 10. In support of the contention that even though the appellate authority has given reasons and has provided opportunity of hearing the same cannot cure the illegality committed by the original authority, which passed the order without providing any opportunity of hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of H.R. RAVINDRANATH vs. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2350. 11. He had also contended that the ban imposed is not based on any evidence, which is an error in law and in the absence of lack of evidence any penalty imposed cannot be sustained because such an act amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of SIDDHARTH MOHANLAL SHARMA vs. SOUTH GUJARATH UNIVERSITY (1982) 23 (1) GLR 233. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1979) 3 SCC 489 , to contend that the ‘great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found’. 12. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1979) 3 SCC 489 , to contend that the ‘great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found’. 12. He also points out that the observatory facility, which is required to be made available to the Researchers and Scientist being in the nature of largesse that is the result of investment of crores of rupees, has to be made available to the Scientists in just and fair manner and not in an arbitrary and unreasonable way. To support this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – (2011) 5 SCC 29 , wherein it has been held that ‘State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action / decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognized modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a nondiscriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy’. 13. The learned counsel Mr. Abhilash Raju, appearing for respondent No.1 has vehemently contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners are required to approach the Central Administration Tribunal because the respondent No.1 – Institution is included by way of amendment in the Group of Institutions to which remedy before CAT is made available. He urges that Petitioner No.1 being an employee of respondent No.1 – Institution, if she is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.1 she has to approach the CAT. He has further contended that the ban imposed against the Petitioner No.1 for six months having already suffered by the Petitioners, present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 14. He urges that Petitioner No.1 being an employee of respondent No.1 – Institution, if she is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.1 she has to approach the CAT. He has further contended that the ban imposed against the Petitioner No.1 for six months having already suffered by the Petitioners, present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 14. As regard Petitioner No.2, it is contended by him that being a co-investigator no ban was imposed against him and the petition filed by him does not have any substance as he is not having any grievance against respondent No.1 – Institution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that ban was imposed only in respect of access to HCT Observatory to Petitioner No.1 as Principal Investigator, Petitioner No.1 was free to use other Observatories including HCT as co-Investigator though not as Principal Investigator. 15. Learned counsel Mr. Ashok N. Patil, appearing for respondent No.2 – Government of India submits that guidelines have been already framed on usage of HCT data and draft of the same has been circulated providing clear instructions and suitable decision would be taken to finalise the guidelines by publishing them. This submission is also supported by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Institution. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on careful consideration of entire material on record, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Institution stating that remedy for Petitioner No.1 is to approach CAT and writ petition, is not maintainable has to be addressed first. The impugned actions are not initiated against the petitioner as an employee of respondent No.1 – Institution. It is not a case pertaining to allegations concerning the employee of the respondent No.1 – Institution for his misconduct during his service but this is the case where Scientists are provided access to the Observatory to carry out research works in Astrophysics are banned to get access to it. It is not the case of respondent No.1 – Institution that HCT Observatory is available only to its employees and that Petitioner No.1 in her capacity as an employee while gaining access to the said HCT Observatory had committed any misconduct, thereby violating service conditions warranting initiation of disciplinary enquiry. It is not the case of respondent No.1 – Institution that HCT Observatory is available only to its employees and that Petitioner No.1 in her capacity as an employee while gaining access to the said HCT Observatory had committed any misconduct, thereby violating service conditions warranting initiation of disciplinary enquiry. Indeed, there is no disciplinary enquiry conducted against the employee and no punishment envisaged under service rules governing petitioner No.1 has been imposed. 17. Indeed, the allegations are that Petitioner No.1 had obtained data from HCT Archieves through Observators and Assistants in an unfair manner, contrary to the traditions and the procedures followed without taking consent of the Principal Investigator, who was none-other than the Complainant – Chairman of the Time Allocation Committee. It cannot be denied that banning access to the Scientist to the Observatory attributing unfair conduct to the petitioner in collecting the data would seriously affect their reputation. Learned counsel for petitioner is right and justified in urging that the ban imposed adversely affects the reputation of the scientist. Therefore, such an action could only be resorted to by adopting a fair and reasonable procedure. He is also right and justified in pointing out that right to dignity and fair treatment is available to everybody, as held by the Apex Court in the case of PANDIT PARAMANANDA KATARA vs. UNION OF INDIA – 1997 (35) ACC 560 (SC). This judgment of the Apex Court is relied on by this Court in the case of PROF. S.N.HEGDE & ANR. Vs. THE LOKAYUKTHA & ORS. – ILR 2004 KAR 3892, wherein this court has held that ‘the right to reputation is part of right to life’. 18. In the instant case fair procedure has not been followed by respondent No.1 – Institution while taking the impugned decision as per Ann.A, banning Petitioner No.1 from having access to the Observatory. Sir William Wades, in his Administrative Law has observed as under ‘In principal there ought to be an observance of natural justice equally at both stages and if natural justice is violated at the 1st stage, the right of appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing; instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair Appeal’. In fact, the Apex Court in the case of INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA vs. L.K.RATNA AIR 1987 SC 71 , has observed in para20 that ‘there is a manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original proceedings and to avoid treating the appeal as a overall substitute for the original proceedings, thus the contention that, when sufficient opportunity was given in appeal, insufficiency in the domestic enquiry can be cured’ was repelled. It, therefore, emerges that when there is total lack of fair procedure adopted by the Director of respondent No.1 – Institution in holding that Petitioner No.1 was guilty, mere fact that at the appellate stage two members appointed by the Governing Council went into the matter and submitted a report based on which ban was imposed would not cure the defect. 19. At any rate, in the instant case, report of the two member Committee does not also find Petitioner No.1 guilty of the allegations made against her. Indeed, the two member Committee came to the conclusion that it was a case where Petitioner No.1 was entitled for benefit of doubt. It has also referred to lack of guidelines in the matter of collecting the data, but has persuaded itself in opining that the ban had to be reduced to six months. This approach does not stand to reason. Therefore, this is a case where Petitioner No.1 has been penalized without there being any finding recorded regarding her guilt and without assigning any reason for such conclusion. There is total lack of reasonable and fair opportunity to her to have her say. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 20. Petitioner No.1 has already undergone the penalty. The only way the grievance of Petitioner No.1 could be salvaged is to set aside the impugned orders and make it clear that the ban undergone by the Petitioner No.1 shall not be taken into consideration against her interests for any other purpose in the pursuit of her carrier. 21. Grievance made by Petitioner No.1 that no proper guidelines have been laid down by the Union of India to regulate access to the Observatories and absence of such guidelines would lead to exercise of arbitrary and discriminatory powers by the authorities has been addressed. 21. Grievance made by Petitioner No.1 that no proper guidelines have been laid down by the Union of India to regulate access to the Observatories and absence of such guidelines would lead to exercise of arbitrary and discriminatory powers by the authorities has been addressed. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 have submitted before court that guidelines, have been framed and respondents are in the process of finalizing the same. It is needless to observe that the said guidelines shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible and shall be scrupulously observed to avoid any such events in future. 22. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The ban undergone by Petitioner No.1, shall not be taken into consideration for any other purpose in pursuit of her carrier by Petitioner No.1.