Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing that petitioner should be restored to the post of Reader in English at Respondent 1, IGNOU, with all benefits and dues, and without any loss of seniority or eligibility for consideration for further promotion. Tushar Rao Gedela, J.*, opined that in the present case, two teachers of IGNOU for identical allegations of plagiarism had been imposed two different punishments, “warning” in one case and “dismissal from service” in the other, shocked the conscience of this Court. Thus, the Court opined that the present case called for remand to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo consideration only in respect of the proportionality of punishment imposed, keeping in view the similar case of a previous teacher and for passing a suitable order.
Background
Petitioner stated that in March 1987, he was appointed as a Lecturer at IGNOU, and was promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 24-10-1991. Petitioner submitted that as per the procedure followed by IGNOU, its academic employees were asked to prepare course modules for distribution to the students of the university and therefore, he was asked to take the responsibility of preparing a part of the course module for M.A. in English Literature. Petitioner completed the coordination of the contents of the said module and then submitted the same. The material prepared by petitioner, after being approved by the Director of the School of Humanities, was printed and disseminated to the students.
On 5-7-2002, petitioner received a letter issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of IGNOU, in which it was stated that it had been brought to its notice that petitioner had indulged in the act of plagiarism in preparation of the module. Petitioner sent a reply to this letter stating that the issue of plagiarism was of an academic nature rather than of pecuniary nature and would not come under the definition of “misconduct”, which was not defined in the Statutes or the Ordinances of IGNOU. Thereafter, on 5-11-2002, petitioner applied for leave to take up an assignment at Tiaz University, Republic of Yemen, which was initially refused, but eventually granted by IGNOU on 3-1-2003. In October 2003, while petitioner was still in Yemen, he received a Memorandum dated 17-9-2003 issued by Respondent 3, Vice Chancellor of IGNOU, which stated that an enquiry was proposed to be held against petitioner. Petitioner returned to India in January 2004, and joined Respondent 1 on 30-1-2004.
The inquiry commenced in April 2004 and petitioner’s case was placed before Respondent 2, the Board of Management of IGNOU for consideration on 23-7-2005, and the impugned order was passed on 25-7-2005, issued by Vice Chancellor of IGNOU, under IGNOU’s authority, whereby petitioner was removed from service as a Reader of IGNOU. Petitioner submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the allegations proved in the inquiry proceedings and if the charge of plagiarism, was proved against petitioner, the punishment imposed was harsh and disproportionate in the facts of the case as in similar circumstances, another similarly situated employee namely, Dr. Kulshrestha, was let off with a mere warning for the similar/identical charge of plagiarism.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court took note of the Enquiry Report and observed that firstly, so far as the first imputation under the Articles of Charge regarding violation of Copyright Act, 1957 and International Copyright Order, 1999 was concerned, the Inquiry Officer did not render any finding on facts, being a legal issue according to him; and secondly, though the Inquiry Officer observed that he did not know whether the CCS (CCA) Rules had been adopted by IGNOU, as full facts were not placed before him coupled with the fact that “misconduct” was not defined in the Statutes of IGNOU Act, 1985, however, concluded that the act of plagiarism was established against petitioner.
The Court noted IGNOU’s contention that petitioner allegedly indulging in plagiarism of large portions from two sources into the study material prepared for the students of IGNOU which was unethical and unbecoming of a teacher of IGNOU. The Court also noted petitioner’s submission that in the case of Dr. Kulshrestha, in an identically placed situation, IGNOU had imposed a punishment of “warning” and yet in petitioner’s case, had imposed penalty of dismissal from service.
The Court took note of the Committee’s Report dated 16-8-2004 in the case of Dr. Kulshrestha and opined that the allegations and issues in both the cases appeared to be similar if not identical. The Court observed that IGNOU tried to downplay the identical act of Dr. Kulshrestha on two grounds, firstly, that Dr. Kulshrestha copied some portions of tax for which IGNOU had the copyrights and as such, his actions did not render IGNOU at any point of time open to a suit of copyright violation; and secondly, that the quantum of work copied by Dr. Kulshrestha was far less than that done by petitioner.
The Court rejected IGNOU’s explanation being unjust and unfair and further opined that plagiarism by any stretch of imagination would remain plagiarism, irrespective of where the material had been copied from and the quantum of such material copied, would not have any bearing or impact on the alleged misconduct of plagiarism itself and the fact that one employee committed acts of plagiarism from books or material upon which IGNOU had copyright of or small quantum of such act would be wholly irrelevant to the issue of plagiarism itself.
The Court relied on Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India, (2019) 15 SCC 786, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that “the Courts ordinarily would not interfere in the punishment imposed unless the same is grossly disproportionate or shocks the conscience of the Court”. The Court also relied on LIC v. Triveni Sharan Mishra, (2014) 10 SCC 346 and opined that in the present case, two teachers of the same university for identical allegations had been imposed two different punishments, “warning” in one case and “dismissal from service” in the other was shocking to the conscience of this Court.
The Court opined that petitioner was able to show disproportionality in punishment imposed upon him and as far as the issue of lack of jurisdiction for entertaining the present writ petition was concerned, Section 8(2) of the IGNOU Act, 1985 did not clearly stipulate that an employee had a Statutory Appeal available to challenge the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court opined that “the language was not framed in a manner so as to conclude that the said provisions stipulate a Statutory Appeal against the Disciplinary Authority’s order in disciplinary matters. The language made it clear that the Visitor, i.e., the President of India had powers which could be exercised also in administrative and financial matters of the University. Other than that, no specific or particular power was bestowed upon the Visitor as a statutory Appellate Authority to the Disciplinary Authority in matters of disciplinary proceedings involving employees of the University”.
Thus, the Court opined that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not completely barred, and the present petition called for remand to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo consideration only in respect of the proportionality of punishment imposed, keeping in view the similar case of Dr. Kulshrestha and for passing a suitable order.
[Ranganatha Nandyal v. IGNOU, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2151, decided on 28-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate; Uri Mohan, Rohan Mandal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Aly Mirza, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
