Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Dr. Ranganatha Nandyal - Appellant
Versus
I. G. N. O. U. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12834 of 2005 & CM APPL. 9634 of 2005
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate with Ms. Uri Mohan and Mr. Rohan Mandal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parity in disciplinary actions, emphasizing that the punishment should be proportionate to the offense.
Headnote:
Plagiarism - Employment Dispute - Copyright Act, 1957, International Copyright Order, 1999 - The judgment discusses the case of the petitioner, a university lecturer, accused of plagiarism in preparing course material. The court analyzed the charges, the inquiry report, and the punishment imposed. It found the punishment of dismissal disproportionate to the offense, citing a similar case where a warning was issued for identical charges. The court ordered a remand for de novo consideration of the punishment, emphasizing the need for parity in disciplinary actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a university lecturer, was accused of plagiarism in preparing course material. The inquiry report found him guilty and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.
Issues: The main issue was the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner for plagiarism in preparing course material.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offense, citing a similar case where a warning was issued for identical charges. It emphasized the need for parity in disciplinary actions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part and ordered a remand for de novo consideration of the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, the following prayers:
"A. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2005 issued by the Respondent No.3
B. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing that the Petitioner be restored to the post of Reader in English at the Indira Gandhi National Open University, Delhi, with all benefits and dues, without any loss of seniority or eligibility for consideration for further promotion.
C. Pass an order awarding costs of this Petition to the Petitioner and against the Respondents
D. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in March 1987, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer at the respondent University, and was promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 24.10.1991.
3. As per the procedure followed by the respondent university, its academic employees are asked to prepare the course modules for distribution to the students of the university. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been asked to take the responsibility of preparing a part of the course module for the M.A. in English Literature dealing with Australian Literature, titled "Jessica Anderson: Tirra Lirra by the River", to be distributed for the M.A. course of 2001-2002, and was asked to take on the role of the Course Coordinator (without any extra remuneration).
4. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the coordination of the contents of the said module and submitted the same to the English Department of the School of Social Humanities of the respondent University.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that after approval by the Director of School of Humanities, the material prepared by the petitioner was printed by the respondent University and thereafter, disseminated to the students of the University.
6. The Petitioner received a letter dated 05.07.2002, issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the respondent University in which it was stated that it had been brought to its notice that the petitioner had indulged in the act of plagiarism in preparation of the module. The petitioner was further asked to give his comments on the issue within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said letter.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter 19.07.2002, the petitioner sent his reply to the aforesaid letter. In the said reply, the petitioner pointed out that the issue of plagiarism is of an academic nature rather than of a pecuniary nature and would not come under the definition of "misconduct", which term, in any case, was not defined in the Statutes or the Ordinances of the respondent University. The petitioner while denying the allegations made against him also pointed out that the module prepared by the petitioner did not claim original authorship of the module. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the material in respect of which plagiarism was alleged was not reproduced verbatim and that the petitioner had used his independent skill, labour and discretion in preparing the module. The petitioner therefore took the stand that the letter from the Chief Vigilance Officer of the respondent University was without authority.
8. On 24.07.2002, the petitioner was sent another letter asking for clarifications in the reply made by him. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 02.08.2002 raised the issue of the Chief Vigilance Officer's authority to call for the comments of the petitioner on the charge of plagiarism. The petitioner also pointed out that he was being selectively targeted and harassed.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that the Chief Vigilance Officer, instead of responding to the legitimate queries raised by the petitioner
