In the present case of Dr. Yogananda vs. Visvesvaraya Technological University, it was ruled by the High Court of Karnataka that all the employees have a right to look at the enquiry report before any disciplinary action. The employees have the right to a fair enquiry. The writ petition was allowed by Karnataka High Court, and the impugned order was set aside. 

Brief Details of Dr. Yogananda vs. Visvesvaraya Technological University 2024

Background of the case

The present case revolves around the disciplinary action taken against Dr. Yogananda A. He works as an assistant professor at the Visvesvaraya Technological University. Dr. Yogananda A’s compulsory retirement under Clause 6(1)(vi) of the VTU CCA Rules, 2000, was recommended by the Governing Council, which was followed by a departmental enquiry. 

The main Disciplinary Authority was the Registrar who issued the second show cause notice and had proposed the penalty. The penalty order proposed by the Registrar was challenged by the Petitioner stating that procedural and constitutional rights were violated specifically under Article 311(1) of the Indian Constitution. 

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution 

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue writs to ensure that fundamental and legal rights are protected for all citizens in India.  

Article 311 of the Indian Constitution

This Article mainly deals with the reduction, dismissal and removal of  ranks of the individuals who are currently working in civil positions with either the State or the Union. The protection mentioned under this Article is only applicable to the public servants. 

The sub-clause (1) states any government officer cannot be removed or fired by someone who is in a lower rank than the person by whom they were hired. It can be an all-India service or a service to the State Government. For instance, an Assistant Collector cannot remove an Additional Collector of the district. 

The sub-clause (2) of the Article states that all civil servants shall only be removed or dismissed after a fair enquiry is made. The civil servant has to be informed about all the charges and should also be given a right to be heard in relation to these charges. 

Issues raised in Dr. Yogananda vs. Visvesvaraya Technological University 2024

1. Was issuing a second show cause notice after the penalty considered valid or not?
2. Was Article 311(1) violated by not giving the enquiry report preceding the penalty?
3. Was the disciplinary action taken against Dr. Yogananda A within the limits of the law and fair?

Contentions of Parties in Dr. Yogananda vs. Visvesvaraya Technological University 2024

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that the recommendations which were made by the Governing Council in relation to the compulsory retirement affected and compromised the disciplinary action. On the other hand, the role of Registrar was purely mechanical in nature.

Whole process clearly violated Article 311(1) of the Constitution because the report of the enquiry was not given at the required stage of the matter. Petitioner also argued that when the penalty was issued to him, the Disciplinary Authority did not make use of his own judgment.

The case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and Others (1993) was also cited by the representative of the petitioner. The cases stated that before a penalty is imposed, an enquiry report is supposed to be provided to the employee against whom the action is being taken. 

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent’s side argued that whatever actions were taken from their side were in accordance with the VTU CCA Rules, 2000. It was also further stated that the second show cause notice and the enquiry report were both issued along with each other, and this satisfies the requirements. 

The Governing Authority had only given the recommendation of the action; it was the Disciplinary Authority that was responsible and had issued the notice for the penalty. As per Article 311(1) a recommendation does not entail a final decision or imposition of the penalty. The Disciplinary Authority has to examine the report, accept or disagree with the report, provide a copy of report to the person in question, and then issue a show cause notice. 

Under this case, the main question which arises is whether the Disciplinary Authority took the decision on his own discretion or whether it was a mechanical compliance of the Governing Authority’s decision.  

Judgment in Dr. Yogananda vs. Visvesvaraya Technological University 2024

The Single Bench Judge in this case decided in favour of the petitioner, who was Dr. Yogananda A. Karnataka High Court also observed that the Registrar was a subordinate to the Governing Council, hence he did not have the authority to act on this in the first place. The writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, was allowed by the Karnataka High Court. The impugned order in relation to the penalty was also quashed. In this case, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum also pointed out that the inquiry report’s copy has to be given before any punishment is decided. 

Conclusion

In this case, we can conclude the importance of a fair chance and the right to be heard in any disciplinary process. The lack of discretion from the Registrar’s side due to influence held by the Governing Council impacted the fairness of the disciplinary action. The court has time and again emphasised on the importance of the opportunity to be heard before any punitive action is taken, along with the importance of access to enquiry reports. 

References

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-art-311-consttution-right-fair-enquiry-compulsory-retirement-253624