The petitioner has called in question validity of the

order at Annexure- AK passed by respondent No.2 and has

sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing

respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated

25.07.2015 requesting for change of the Enquiry Officer.

This was the relief as sought for initially prior to amendment

of the petition.

3

2.

It is seen that the petitioner during the course of

his work during his visit to the University of Sistan and

Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran had entered into an MOU with

the Foreign University to facilitate collaboration between the

two

Universities,

however,

without

approval

of

the

University. It is made out that a complaint was made by

one Sri Sathyanaraya alleging that the petitioner and others

had entered into an MOU in violation of the Statutes of the

Mysore University. Proceedings were initiated calling for

explanation by the petitioner and Articles of Charges were

issued against the petitioner. It is further submitted that at

the stage of request for change of the Enquiry Officer on the

ground of bias, petitioner had made a representation to

respondent No.2 and the present writ petition came to be

filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus

to consider the representation of 25.07.2015 relating to

change of the Enquiry Officer.

3.

It is made out from the records that on

19.08.2015, interim order of stay of further proceedings of

4

enquiry was made and subsequently, same was modified to

the effect that continuance of proceedings in enquiry was

subject to further orders of this Court. It is further

submitted that on 09.02.2016, penalty of reduction of pay

to minimum of Rs.37,400/- + AGP Rs.10,000/- in the UGC

pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with effect from 01.02.2016

till 30.04.2018 and to restore his pay from 01.05.2018 with

the benefit of all increments, notionally without having

cumulative effect was made. The petitioner had challenged

the order of imposition of penalty by way of amendment to

the present petition.

4.

It is submitted that another enquiry was also

held against the petitioner regarding publication of certain

articles in the newspaper amounting to miconduct. The said

enquiry having been concluded, the penalty of compulsory

retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2016 came to be passed. It is

submitted that as against the order of compulsory

retirement,

petitioner

preferred

an

appeal

before

respondent No.1 against the syndicate resolution of

5

21.11.2016. It is submitted that with the government order

of 12.06.2017 setting aside the decision and the order of

University in its syndicate in the resolution No.2016/11.9

dated 21.11.2016, it is not only the order of compulsory

retirement that was set aside but also the order of reduction

of pay.

5.

It is to be noticed that the appeal filed by the

petitioner was against the order and the resolution of the

University bearing No.2016/11.4, whereby resolution was

passed imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. It

is to be noticed that resolution of 21.11.2016 refers to the

Syndicate

having

decided

to

retire

the

petitioner

compulsorily by virtue of the Statute 5(1)(viii) of the Mysore

University

Employees

(CCA)

Statutes,

1983

w.e.f.

30.11.2016 also, whereby earlier punishment imposed upon

him was modified.

6.

Accordingly, the effective date of reduction to

minimum pay was directed to be confined from 01.02.2016

to 31.10.2016. This modification was in light of the decision

6

of the University to impose punishment of compulsory

retirement. It is in such light, reduction of pay was reduced

from 30.04.2018 till 31.10.2016. The government in its

order of 12.06.2017, no doubt, set aside the resolution

bearing No.2016/11.9. However, the observation in the

body of the same order is that insofar as reduction of pay to

the minimum in light of the case pending before this Court

and that any action by the Government regarding resolution

of the Syndicate would amount to interference in the

matter, which is sub-judic