H L CHANDREGOWDA Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the punishment imposed on the petitioner by 1st respondent vide order dated 3-6-1988, bearing No. U.o.-est / e1 / 88-89-annexure - d as well as for quashing of the order of 2nd respondent dated 31-8-1989, dismissing appeal contained in Annexure - h to this writ petition.

(2.) the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been working as the private secretary to the registrar, Bangalore university. According to the petitioner's case, petitioner reported to the duty as such on January 1st, 1987 and took charge of the post of private secretary on that date. Further, the petitioner's case is that he attended to all the files the charge of which had been made over to him at the time when he assumed office. That no file of Dr. Sreerama reddy, former professor of sericulture was handed over to the petitioner at the time of taking over charge. That in the course of his official duties when he was going through some other records the petitioner noticed in the registrar's personal Section that file of sreerama reddy was also kept in some old records. So, he sent that file to establishment Section on 20-5-1987 and noted down the detailed circumstances in which the said file was addressed or traced with further information that the said file had not been handed over to the petitioner. On 28-5-1987, the petitioner was relieved from the post of private secretary and thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition along with the imputation of misconduct appended to it and annexed as annexure-1 to this writ petition. That the charge was put to the effect that the file of sreerama reddy, was referred to the private secretary to the registrar on 28-7-1986, for furnishing certain information and it was received and registered in the personal establishment under No. Rpf 2667, dated 28-8-1986 and that the petitioner had taken charge as private secretary on 1-1-1987. That when the petitioner had taken charge the file was already pending in the personal establishment, but the petitioner failed to attend to this file until 20-5-1987. When it was put up for being returned to the establishment Section of the petitioner, failed to attend to . This file and thereby, it was mentioned in the cause that the petitioner caused inordinate delay in the disposal of the case relating to g. Sreerama reddy. That it was further mentioned in the charge-sheet that petitioner was in charge of the personal Section of the registrar and it was the petitioner's responsibility to ensure prompt attention to the files received and to take necessary action thereon, but the petitioner had been negligent and left the file unattended to for the period from 1st january, 1987 until 20-5-1987. That the petitioner was charged with lack of devotion to duty and of having committed violation of the Bangalore university employees' service (conduct) rules.

(3.) a perusal of Annexure-A shows that the petitioner was called upon to file representation against the said charge - sheet within 15 days of receipt of the notice in accordance with the university statutes. That the petitioner's case is that within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed his representation-annexure-b to this writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner sent certain reminders. The opposite party thereafter, passed the order censuring the conduct of the petitioner on the ground that the file was in the personal Section, but it was lying unattended and the petitioner's defence that the file was not handed over to the petitioner was untenable. The petitioner filed appeal from that order and that order had been affirmed by the chancellor taking the view that necessary procedure prescribed had been followed and no appeal did lay. Having felt aggrieved from the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition before this court. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties.