IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104745 OF 2025 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

PROF. JAGANATH L RATHOD, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR AT KUPG KARWAR, R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, KADIBAG, KARWAR – 581 303.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580 001.

2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/REPT. BY. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD - 580 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND Location: Hi gh Court of Karnataka, 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT Dharwad Bench, Dharwad OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTING THE MEMO OF APPEARANCE FILED BY THE SRI. S.S.F. ADVOCATE TO DEFEND PETITIONER IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY, DATED 12/07/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DE.ONO.KAVV/CAASUE/SHIKSHAK-04/96, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO APPOINT ADVOCATE TO DEFEND HIS CASE BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 12.07.2025 by which the claim of the petitioner to be defended by a legal practitioner / advocate comes to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. K.L.

Patil representing respondents.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

4. The petitioner is appointed as a Lecturer at the Karnataka University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’ for short) in the Department of Marine Biology at the Post Graduate Centre, Karwar. On certain omissions and commissions, the petitioner was sought to be proceeded departmentally by issuance of a charge sheet. The petitioner in the enquiry seeks to be defended by an advocate on the score that the Presenting Officer so appointed by the University was a law graduate and an intermittent legal practitioner. This comes to be rejected by the University on the score that the rules or laws do not authorize permitting a legal practitioner to be defended. It is this action of the University that has drawn the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Rule 8 of the Karnataka University Employees Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1998 permits the delinquent employee to be defended by a legal practitioner if the University is represented by a legal practitioner. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, all of which are followed by this Court to buttress his submission.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. K.L. Patil appearing for the respondent – University submits that the Rule is only directory and not mandatory and would further contend that the Presenting Officer is a law graduate and is not an active legal practitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to seek the assistance of a legal practitioner in the Department of Enquiry. The afore narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be defended by a legal practitioner in the Department of Enquiry. Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as follows.

“The employee for representing his case may take the assistance of any other employee of the University. Where the University has appointed a Legal practitioner to present the case on its behalf, the employee shall not be denied the right to be represented by the legal practitioner if so wishes.”

7. The Rule indicates that if the employee is so desires and if the employer is represented by a legal