ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.09.2012, thereby imposing penalty of reduction in pay to the initial stage of the pay scale for a period of five years, without cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Commerce in the respondents university by an order dated 15.09.2006. Subsequently, he was confirmed in the said post on completion of his probation period. While he was working as Assistant Professor, he submitted his M.Phil thesis. In respect of the thesis submitted by the petitioner, he was requested for clarification, on receipt of some anonymous letters. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with charge memo dated 17.06.2011, with regard to plagiarism in the papers published by the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, without satisfying the explanation, the enquiry was ordered.

3. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner was given opportunity and on completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report that all the charges were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was given liberty to give explanation on the enquiry report. On receipt of the said explanation, by an order dated 12.09.2012, the second respondent imposed punishment or reduction in pay to the initial stage of the pay scale for a period of five years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the above said prayer.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never admitted any charges as alleged in the impugned order. In fact, he had used the thesis papers which were already submitted for research purpose and due to inadvertently some of them were reflected in his thesis. Therefore, it would not amount to plagiarize and the petitioner was not given enough opportunity of hearing. The entire disciplinary proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice. In fact the petitioner was not served with material particulars as alleged in the charges and as such the petitioner was not able to cross examine the management witness. That apart, the relevant papers which are the basic to frame the charges of plagiarism have not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner never accepted any charges. However the findings of the second respondent is that the petitioner accepted the charges as alleged by the enquiry officer. Hence, he prayed to set aside the punishment imposed by the second respondent.

5. The respondents filed counter and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it was brought to the notice of the respondents university vide communication dated 14.02.2011 that the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism in publishing papers. Therefore, the petitioner was served with charge memo and the petitioner also submitted his explanation dated 14.03.2011. In his explanation, he categorically mentioned that the research papers were not used for academic promotions and there was no monetary benefits claimed.

Further, he admitted the charges and sought for apology.

5.1. Therefore, it was placed before the meeting of the Executive Council held on 24.03.2011 along with two other similar cases. After giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, enquiry was conducted and on the enquiry report, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. Again, he submitted his explanation and it was not satisfactorily as such, finally the petitioner was punished with the punishment of reduction in pay to the initial stage of the pay scale for a period of five years, without cumulative effect. In fact, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the first respondent and while pending the appeal the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel app