Back
Karnataka High Court
PROF.S.N.HEGDE - Appellant
Versus
THE LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-04
Whether the Vice-Chancellor of a University falls within the category of Group 'a' Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 10620-260-10880-320-13440-380-14960 and above, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Lokayukta to investigate into the allegations or grievance against them?
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Vice-Chancellor and Professor of a University, challenged the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate the complaints against them. The Lokayukta had submitted a report to the Government recommending action against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaints against them as they were not Group 'a' Officers and that the procedure followed by the Lokayukta was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaints against the petitioners as they were not Group 'a' Officers. The Court also held that the procedure followed by the Lokayukta was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against the Vice-Chancellor of a University? 2. Whether the Vice-Chancellor and Professor of a University falls within the category of Group 'a' Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 10620-260-10880-320-13440-380-14960 and above, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Lokayukta to investigate into the allegations or grievance against them? 3. Whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate into the complaints against the petitioners when no Upalokayukta is appointed? 4. Whether right to reputation is part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution? 5. Whether the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act, which provides for the procedure regarding the investigation to be conducted is arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaints against the Vice-Chancellor of a University as the specific provision in the Universities Act excluded the jurisdiction of Lokayukta. The Court relied on the principle of statutory interpretation that a subsequent general Act does not affect a prior special Act by implication. 2. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor and Professor of a University did not fall within the category of Group 'a' Officers as they were not appointed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 or 2000. The Court also held that the notification issued by the Government in consultation with the Lokayukta, which conferred power on the Lokayukta to investigate complaints against Group 'a' Officers, did not confer jurisdiction on the Lokayukta to investigate complaints against the petitioners. 3. The Court held that the Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to investigate into the complaints against the petitioners when no Upalokayukta was appointed. The Court held that the Lokayukta could only investigate complaints against public servants who fall within their jurisdiction and that the petitioners did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. 4. The Court held that the right to reputation is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court which held that reputation is a precious thing, the man cherishes most in his life and that any wrong action by the State or its agencies which sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would certainly come under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. The Court held that the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act, which provides for the procedure regarding the investigation to be conducted, was not arbitrary and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the procedure prescribed under Section 9 was sufficient compliance with Article 21 and that the principles of natural justice were engrafted into the provision of law by implication.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned report of the Lokayukta against the petitioners. The Court held that the report was passed without jurisdiction, was a nullity and non est in the eye of law and suffered from the incurable defect of non-observation of principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaints against the petitioners and that the procedure followed by the Lokayukta was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
( 1 ) IN these writ petitions important questions of law as regards the power of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta to investigate complaints under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the procedure to be followed in such investigations, the effect of the report submitted by the Lokayukta and the consequences that flow from the declarations made under the Act arise for consideration, in addition to the question whether the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a Vice-Chancellor of a University.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. Nos. 25339 and 25340 of 2003 is one professor S. N, Hegde, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. His case in brief is as under. The petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancel lor in September 1997 initially for a period of three years which was further extended for a period of three years in September 2000. His term was to expire in september 2003. He had put in more than 40 years of service in teaching, research and administration in the field of higher education. Because of his performance he was given a second term. He was holding m. Sc and Ph. D Degrees in Zoology and has written more than 60 research article's published in reputed national and international journals. He has guided eleven Ph. D students. He was also a commonwealth Post Doctoral Fellow in England during Fulbright (1974-76) and full-time visiting Professor at the University of Arizona, u. S. A. during the period 1992-93. He was also a member of National and International academic bodies, namely, Member, New York academy of Science, American Association for the advancement of science, Elected President for two terms of the Indian Society for comparative Animal Physcology. He is also a recipient of Shivarama karantha, International Parisara Award. He has a clean and an unblemished track record.
( 3 ) THE fourth respondent herein who was in the habit of blackmailing various persons in order to get his work done in the University where he is employed, has fabricated a false complaint against the petitioner with the help of the third respondent. This is evident from the fact that the complaints lodged against former Vice-Chancellors, Prof K. S. Hegde (1979-35), Dr. P. Selvie Das (1988-91) and Prof M. Madaiah (1991-97) which were enquired into by Committees such as Venkataswamy committee, Hazira Committee and Sharma Committee found that the allegations made by the fourth respondent were false and closed the files exonerating them.
( 4 ) THE complaint lodged against the petitioner was that he received us $ 7,000 from Late Dr. KL. Rama Das who was the Chairman of TTL college of Business Management, Saraswathi Puram, Mysore, towards getting permanent affiliation to TTL College; permission to start B. Com. course and to enhance intake of MBA course from 40 to 60. The further allegation is that is received Rs. 25,000. 00 on 4-7-2002 by cash from ttl College to goto Delhi. The same was received as a bribe to do a favour to the said college. The said complaint was sent through an e-Mail dated 14-9-2002 by Ramdas to the Lokayukta. The second one was a complaint from the fourth respondent to the Lokayukta, third was a complaint in the prescribed form from the third respondent. The fourth respondent's complaint made to the Governor of Karnataka was in turn sent to the Lokayukta by the Under Secretary to the Governor of karnataka, with a covering letter.
( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 24135 of 2003 is that he is working as a Professor and Chairman, Department of Studies in business Administration at the University of Mysore since 1999. He has put in 32 years of service in the University of Mysore without any blemish to his reputation or any allegations in his service records. The ttl College referred to supra. did not have a competent and eligible faculty on their rolls to guide their students. Although extending guidance facility to the students of the college was no
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
