Dr. V.B. Nadyal vs The Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences and M.R. Medical College

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—A Professor of Anatomy in the 2nd respondent-Medical College, has presented this petition calling in question the order dated 06.11.2009 - Annexure-A of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka- Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 20.07.2010 - Annexure-B of the 2nd respondent-Medical College. Petitioner while discharging duties as a Professor in the Department of Anatomy in the 2nd respondent-Medical College alleging that one Dr. Raju Kulageri, a tutor in the 2nd respondent-College, was not regular in teaching work, developed enmity against the petitioner and in order to malign petitioner''s reputation, got issued through the institution a notice dated 21.10.2009 making frivolous allegations. The petitioner claims to have appeared before the committee constituted by the 1st respondent-University though, neither copy of the complaint petition nor the articles of the charges were furnished, nevertheless denied all allegations and when asked whether he had taken any favors from the students, the same was emphatically denied. However, petitioner admitted the fact that due to an emergency, had asked the students to book an air ticket for which money was paid and the parents of the students were aware of the same, as stated in the reply dated 30.10.2009-Annexure-D.

Petitioner alleging that the 1st respondent-University without extending adequate opportunity of hearing to defend himself, passed the Office Order dated 06.11.2009-Annexure-A to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of the examiners and LIC Inspectors etc., permanently and that examination duties should not be assigned to him, while debarring the petitioner from conducting all examination related duties and also other academic duties assigned by the University, and the letter dated 20.07.2010, Annexure-B of the 2nd respondent-College to replace the petitioner from the post of Head of the Department of Anatomy and appointing Dr. S.R. Muttagi as in-charge Head of the Department of Anatomy, has preferred this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of a properly constituted enquiry by issuing an Articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of witnesses and documents, a farce of an enquiry was held leading to the Office Order -Annexure-A, which is unsustainable. So also it is submitted that the 2nd respondent-Medical College, without a proper enquiry, relieved the petitioner from the post of Head of the Department of Anatomy by the Communication dated 20.07.2010 - Annexure-B, which too suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the 1st respondent having secured the recommendation of the committee constituted for professional misconduct/laps enquiry and the orders of the Hon''ble Vice Chancellor on 06.11.2009, issued the Office Orders dated 06.11.2009-Annexure-A, debarring the petitioner from examination related duties. According to the learned counsel, petitioner having admitted, in writing, Annexure-D, over the favors received from students, though claimed that it was due to an emergency and without bad intention, nevertheless, being a Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy was required to maintain absolute integrity and standard of conduct, which was not exhibited and therefore, no exception can be taken to the office order and the communication dated 20.07.2010--Annexure-B removing the petitioner from the post of Head of the Department of Anatomy, as a consequence.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned, the fact that allegations were made against the petitioner over receiving a favour from students cannot be disputed, since petitioner admitted the said fact. The justification for having taken the favour is said to be due to an emergency, without any bad intention, as indicated in the reply dated 30.10.2009 Annexure-D addressed to the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University. That letter discloses that the petitioner accepted a favour as it was an emergency and not with any bad intention and also paid the money for the air ticket, while informing the students and their parents. As regards accessories to the Cars and shopping done, being yet other allegations, the same was denied. In that letter petitioner made allegations against Dr. Muttagi and Dr. Raju Kulageri and stated that they were supported by the Dean.

A bare perusal of the statements made in the letter, Annexure-D discloses that the petitioners took advantage of the students who were not in a position to refuse extending the favour, least be in the bad books of the petitioner. Even if there was a grave emergency, a Teacher/Professor/Lecturer is required to maintain good conduct and not seek favors from students. This only speaks of the character and conduct of the petitioner which is not in tune with being a Lecturer or Teacher. A Teacher has to maintain absolute integrity, good behavior, devotion to duty and exemplary to be a role model. These qualities are inbuilt requirements of a teacher. What exactly is the grave emergency for seeking the favour is not forthcoming from the letter. The very admission is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has scout regard to his position as a Head of the Department.

Be that as it may, the proceedings and recommendations of the professional misconduct/laps enquiry committee dated 31.10.2009 and 06.11.2009 are not forthcoming from the records. If the petitioner is not supplied with a copy of the same, it goes without saying that it militates against the rights of the petitioner to a fair hearing before issuing the order Annexure-A and the communication Annexure-B. Moreover, it is also not known as to what transpired in the enquiry held by the committee, since copies of the proceedings of the said committee are not made available to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, it cannot but be said that the Office Order dated 06.11.2009--Annexure-A suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice. Sequentially, the order, Annexure-B is also unsustainable. Hence, Annexures-A and B are quashed. Regard being had to the admission of the petitioner, a Professor in Anatomy that he had taken a favour from students, it is needless to state that the petitioner should not be assigned any examination duties and it is necessary that action be initiated against the petitioner and also the student who extended such a favour to the petitioner. Until such time and until petitioner is furnished with all the relevant material, the respondents are directed not to post the petitioner for examination related duties and also as the Head of the Department of Anatomy. The order Annexure-A and the communication Annexure-B are read down as Show-cause-Notice to which the petitioner may file his objections if any and thereafter it is for the educational Institution to proceed with the matter and pass orders in accordance with law.

Petition is accordingly ordered.