Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 754 (KAR)

Prof. K. G. Asha Manjari v. State of Karnataka

2016-10-07

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner, Prof. K.G. Asha Manjari, has challenged the legality of the order dated 1-10-2016 passed by the Registrar, Mysore University, whereby the Registrar has relieved the petitioner from her duties as a Chairperson of the Department of Studies in Earth Science. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be a Professor of Geology. In February - 2016, she was appointed as a Chairperson of the Department in Earth Science (Geology). As the Chairperson, she has about eight laboratories under her control. It is her responsibility to maintain, and to administer these eight laboratories of the Department. But the High Pressure High Temperature Lab and a UPE Project Lab are not under her control, but are under the control of Prof. K. Byrappa, a retired Professor and at present, Vice-Chancellor of the Mangalore University. As Head of the Department, she was also responsible for clearing the bills, and the expenditures incurred in respect of the Research Scholars working in the Department. 3. In the evening of 18-7-2016, some miscreants had entered the High Pressure High Temperature Lab by breaking the window panes. Subsequently, on 19-7-2016, not only broken glasses were discovered, but even bloodstains on the window panes, and on the floors were discovered. The Attender, who was attached to the lab, reported the incident to the petitioner. The petitioner along with other Professors and the University Security Officer inspected the lab. The Security Officer informed the incident to the Jayalakshmipuram Police Station. The petitioner further claims that she, immediately, phoned and informed the Registrar about the said incident. On 19-7-2016, she sent a report to the Registrar about the said incident. The petitioner also held a meeting of the Staff on 21-7-2016. Despite the fact that the petitioner had informed the Registrar on 19-7-2016 itself, on 8-8-2016, the Registrar issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner why the higher authorities of the University were not informed about the alleged incident, mentioned above. On 16-8-2016, the petitioner, immediately, submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice. 4. But still on 20-8-2016, again the University issued a show-cause notice, wherein she was directed not only to withdraw the complaint lodged in the Police Station, but to handover the keys of the laboratories under the control of the Prof. On 16-8-2016, the petitioner, immediately, submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice. 4. But still on 20-8-2016, again the University issued a show-cause notice, wherein she was directed not only to withdraw the complaint lodged in the Police Station, but to handover the keys of the laboratories under the control of the Prof. K. Byrappa, and also to clear the bills of the Research Scholars, who were working under retired Prof. K. Byrappa. Even to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner filed a reply on 27-8-2016. But subsequently, the Registrar has passed an order dated 1-10-2016, whereby the petitioner has been removed from her duties as Chairperson of the Department, and Prof. M.S. Sethu Madhav has been appointed as Chairperson of the Department. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Mr. M.V. Vedachala, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the Syndicate of the University does not have the power to remove the petitioner from the Chairmanship. The said power is vested in the Academic Council under Section 31 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, the Registrar is unjustified in claiming that pursuant to the decision of the syndicate meeting, held on 29-9-2016, the petitioner is being removed from the Chairmanship of the Department. Therefore, the impugned order is against the Act. Secondly, since the petitioner has already given her explanation why she could not implement the directions of the Syndicate, the University is not justified in depriving her from the Chairmanship of the Department. 6. On the other hand, Mr. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, the learned counsel for the University, submits that under Section 29 of the Act, the Syndicate has the power to manage the affairs of the University. Secondly, under the provisions of the Mysore University Departmental Councils (Powers, Duties and Functions), Statutes, 1987, ('the Statutes', for short) the Chairman of the Department is appointed by the Syndicate. Therefore, the Syndicate would also have the necessary power to remove the Chairperson. Thirdly, the petitioner cannot claim the right to continue as a Chairperson. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed legally; the impugned order does not violate either the fundamental rights, or the civil rights of the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 8. Thirdly, the petitioner cannot claim the right to continue as a Chairperson. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed legally; the impugned order does not violate either the fundamental rights, or the civil rights of the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 8. Section 29(1) of the Act clearly stipulates that the Syndicate shall have the power "to manage the affairs of the University in particular to administer the funds and properties of the University." The appointment of the Chairperson of the Department would certainly fall within the terms "to manage the affairs of the University." Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in claiming that Syndicate does not have the power to remove the Chairperson of the Department. 9. Section 31 of the Act deals with the powers of the Academic Council. Section 31(2) (xiv) empowers the Academic Council to nominate the members to the various authorities of the University. However, the powers of the Academic Council are sub ordinate to the powers of the Syndicate. Moreover, under the Statutes, the power to appoint the Chairperson has been bestowed upon the Syndicate. Since the Syndicate has power to appoint the Chairman, it has also the power to replace the Chairman of a Department. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the Syndicate does not have the power to remove the Chairman of a Department. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable. 10. A bar e perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that despite the decision of the Syndicate, the petitioner has failed to implement the directions. Instead the petitioner has merely sent her reasons for not obeying the decision of the syndicate. However, it is not for this Court to go into the questions whether the petitioner is justified in the stand being taken by her or not ? Or the issue whether the Syndicate is justified in the stand being taken by it that the petitioner has intentionally, and wilfully disobeyed its decision ? 11. The only issue before this Court is whether the Registrar is legally justified in passing the impugned order ? And whether the said order is passed within the scope and ambit of the Syndicate's power. As discussed above, the Syndicate has the power to remove the Chairman. Thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 12. 11. The only issue before this Court is whether the Registrar is legally justified in passing the impugned order ? And whether the said order is passed within the scope and ambit of the Syndicate's power. As discussed above, the Syndicate has the power to remove the Chairman. Thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.