Disciplinary action must be based on accurate information and must afford the individual an opportunity of hearing before imposing any punishment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The factual matrix of this matter is little unusual.

2. The petitioner is an Artist and National Akademi award winner of the year 2004 by Lalit Kala Akademi (National Akademi of Art). The petitioner acquired post experience Diploma of Sculpture from Royal College of Art, London in the year 1986-1988. He was awarded National Sculpture Scholarship, in the year 1996. He was granted Junior Research Fellowship by the Government of India in 1997. He was also awarded Charles Wallace Grant and Henry Moore Fellowship in United Kingdom. He participated in several International Solo Exhibition in different States of Europe and in the United States his work of Art was selected to represent India in Italian Contemporary Art exhibition by the National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi.

3. Presently he is a Professor of the Department of Sculpture, Kala Bhavan, Viswabharati University, Santiniketan.

4. The petitioner found a public announcement made in various English Newspapers from where he came to learn that the Lalit Kala Akademi, a registered society wholly controlled by Government of India had set up a disciplinary committee by the said Akademi in compliance with the Government/ High Court order to inquire into complaint against General Council Members (of the Akademi) who violated code of conduct by promoting themselves/ relatives in Akademi activities giving personal leave over Akademi objection. The competent authority of Lalit Kala Akademi by issuing an order dated Jaunary 07, 2014 held that paragraph 17 (11) of the Constitution of the Akademi and on such ground passed some punishment orders in respect of some of the General Council Members named in the said paper publication.

5. The paper publication has been annexed as annexure P-5 of the writ application.

6. From the said paper publication it is found that in respect of one Sri Mukul Panwar the following punishment was awarded :

"Censure for all times. Recovery of loss to the Akademi due to his unauthorized visit to various countries. Withdrawal of National Awad to his brother Pankaj Panwar including plaque and revocerry of Award money. Publication in National Print media for information to public at large".

7. The case of the petitioner is that he is in no way connected to said Mukul Panwar but the Akademi passed a punishment order against Mukul Panwar whereby beside punishment given to Mukul Panwar, National Award given to the petitioner was withdrawn including the plaque and recovery of award money. Such punishment was also decided by the Akademi to be published in National print Media for information to public at large.

8. The petitioner's case is that he is in no way related to Mukul Panwar. There was absolutely no reason for involving his name with said Mukul Panwar the Akadami is fully mistaken in holding that he is brother of said Mukul Panwar as he is not the brother of mukul Panwar. The petitioner also alleged that Akadami cannot have any documents or any other thing to hold that he is brother of Mukul Panwar and finally the petitioner has stated that before awarding such punishment involving him the Akademi never gave him any opportunity of hearing for taking such decision (as mentioned above) of punishment against him and therefore, such decision of Akademi is against the principles of natural justice and wholly bad in the eye of law, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

9. The respondent i.e. Lalit Kala Akademi and others took objection at the initial stage of hearing of the matter (in April 2014) raising preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. This court by passing a judgment and order in detail considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its different judgments relating to territorial jurisdiction rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent.

10. After several years in 2019 the matter came up before this Court for final hearing.

11. At the final hearing despite of service several notices upon the