Dr. M.P. Giridharan vs Kerala Agricultural University, The Director of Research (Convener) and Dr. R. Gopinath, Head, Instructional Farm

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to finalise enquiry proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 after giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend the enquiry etc. The petitioner herein is working as Associate Professor in the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Pilicode under the first respondent University. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 20/01/2000 of the Comptroller of the Kerala Agricultural University, the petitioner started a research on sweet toddy under the Kerala Agricultural University Plan Project. It was funded by the University and later the project continued under the National Agricultural Technology Project.

The third respondent herein is the head of Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara under the same University. It appears that there was a complaint regarding the duplication of the research work and, therefore, the University as per Ext.P7 constituted a High Level Committee consisting of three members to enquire into the whole issues on ''Kerasudha''. The various terms of reference have also been mentioned in Ext.P7 order. Complaining about the inaction on the part of the committee, to go into the disputed aspects between the petitioner and the third respondent and to finalise the enquiry, he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining his contentions in the matter. The third respondent also has taken the stand that the enquiry has to be completed so as to bring out the truth and to disprove the false allegation against him that the ''Kerasudha'' project conceived and implemented by him and other teachers in the main campus of the University was a fabricated research work.

The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit also. On behalf of the University an affidavit has been filed which is dated 08/08/2008. The Registrar of the University is the deponent of the affidavit. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner has a case that his findings were taken away by the third respondent who is the head of the Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara and the third respondent has made announcement that he invented ''Kerasudha''. It is pointed out that the University has constituted a fresh Enquiry Committee with the same terms as per Order dated 16/02/2008 and 07/04/2008. The Enquiry Committee had found that the research conducted by the petitioner is genuine. The Executive Committee of the University accepted the Enquiry Committees findings and issued an order dated 14/07/2008, and the petitioner was requested to submit result of the research to the University, which he has refused till date. The stand taken in the affidavit is that since the Enquiry Committee constituted by the University had filed a report, which has been accepted by the University, the writ petition has become infructuous.

The petitioner has produced in the reply affidavit various documents including the report of the Committee that was appointed later by order dated 07/04/2008 as Ext.P21.

The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only on completion of the enquiry that was undertaken by the University, by forming a High Level Committee as per Ext.P7, alone his grievances will be redressed. It is pointed out that there was no justification to reconstitute the committee and the attempt made by the University during the pendency of the writ petition without getting permission of this Court to constitute a new committee to go into the terms of reference is also plainly without any justification. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the University submitted that the order dated 07/04/2008, happened to be passed in the light of the circumstances explained therein and later by another order dated 14/07/2008, the matter was deliberated upon by the Executive Committee in its 450th meeting and they have taken various decisions and accordingly, the following orders were issued:

The High Level Committee constituted as per order 1st read above is treated as cancelled.

The Director of Research, Kerala Agricultural University will pursue action based on the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted as per order 2nd read above.

The research work of Dr. M.P. Giridharan on "Standardisation of extraction and preservation techniques of Palm Sap (toddy) from coconut" is approved as the only Faculty Research Committee approved project of the University in this topic.

It is decided to initiate legal/disciplinary action against Dr. M.P. Giridharan for not having complied with the direction of the University to submit the technology for "Neera production".

It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that nothing survives in this writ petition and the direction sought to continue the deliberations of the High Level Committee appointed as per Ext.P7 cannot be granted.

The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent also submitted that the allegations raised against his project are not really true. It is also submitted that the third respondent did not take part in the deliberation of the committee formed as per order dated 07/04/2008.

It is true that the University by an order dated 07/04/2008 reconstituted the committee which was formed as per Ext.P7. The said order passed by the University is not under challenge in this writ petition. The report of the said Enquiry Committee has been discussed by the Executive Committee and proceedings have been issued accepting the report of the committee as well as approving research work of the petitioner as the only Faculty Research Committee approved project of the University in this topic. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the action taken by the University in that regard needs any adjudication before this Court at this stage. Of course, if the petitioner has got any complaint regarding the research work made by the third respondent or the third respondent has got any complaint in respect of the research work undertaken by the petitioner, it is up to them to approach the appropriate forum.

With regard to the complaint raised by the petitioner that the enquiry report itself does not satisfy the requirements, it is upto the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the findings of the report, to agitate the matter in appropriate proceedings before the authorities of the University.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.