Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.

org/doc/498810/

Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View

ghost Search

Cites 8 docs - [View All]

Section 8 in BANKING REGULATION ACT,1949
The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003
Section 9 in BANKING REGULATION ACT,1949
Section 2 in The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003
K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 7 April, 1971

Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free thesis

experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it. ph.d
plagiarism
Karnataka High Court chancellor
Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on 13 April, 2007 commission of enquiry

Equivalent citations: 2007 (5) KarLJ 254 expert committee

Author: N Patil verbatim reproduction

Bench: N Patil vice chancellor

university act
ORDER N.K. Patil, J. plagiarism thesis
statement of objects
Page 1224
translators

1. Though this matter is posted for orders on I.A. for vacating stay, with the consent of the learned inimical

Counsel appearing for both parties, the same is taken up for hearing and reserved and is disposed of as university is not a state

follows: karnataka state universities act 2000

karnataka state universities act
Petitioner herein, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 30th August commission of inquiry
2006 bearing No. GS 3 BUM. 2003 vide Annexure A, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, state of karnataka
petitioner has sought for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents from proceeding with any small farmer
enquiry under and in pursuance of the impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 bearing No. GS shirole
3 BUM. 2003 vide Annexure A, holding that, any such enquiry is without authority of law.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioner herein hails from Kodiyanur P.O., Malur Taluk, Kolar District and has obtained his Masters
Degree in Sociology and Rural Development during the years 1992 and 1995 respectively from the
Bangalore University, Bangalore. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his application to Bangalore
University for registration of his candidature for Ph.D. (research work) according to the Regulations
governing the Ph.D. course in Bangalore University Subsequently, the Ph.D. Registration Committee
passed a resolution at its meeting held on 29th December 1995 approving the registration of the
petitioner for Ph.D. course and petitioner received the communication dated 29th January 1996 from
the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University approving the registration for Page 1225 Ph.D. degree for
the title of the Thesis in respect of which the registration was granted, viz. "Small Farmers in Rural
Karnataka - A Sociological Study". One Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty was the guide of the petitioner to carry
on the research work in the aforesaid subject. When things stood thus, it is the petitioner's case that,
petitioner had completed data collection which was required for writing the Thesis and had also
successfully completed the pre-Ph.D. Examination and sometime during February 2002, petitioner felt
that, it was difficult for him to write the Thesis in English. Therefore, he intended to submit his Thesis
in Kannada language and also wanted to change the guide for the said purpose. Accordingly, petitioner
gave a representation dated 27th March 2002, requesting the University to grant him permission to
change the language in which the Thesis has to be submitted and also for change of the guide. The said
representation submitted by petitioner was placed before the Ph.D. Registration Committee on 29th
August 2002 and the request of the petitioner for both change of guide as well as for submitting his
Thesis in Kannada Language was accepted/granted and a new guide, by name Dr. Chikkamylarappa
was nominated by the said Committee by its communication dated 14th September 2002, informing

1 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

the petitioner to remit the prescribed fee within six months from the date of the said communication.
Accordingly, thereafter, petitioner has submitted his Thesis in Kannada language and the same was
referred to the Examiners as per the Ph.D. Regulations for objective consideration and scrutiny of the
said Thesis. The Thesis submitted by petitioner was approved by the examiners and also a
consequential viva-voce examination was conducted. Thereafter, the University awarded Ph.D. decree
during 2002 vide Annexure F, duly admitting the petitioner to the Convocation. Be that as it may.

3. Thereafter, it is the case of petitioner that, at this stage, some persons inimically disposed towards
the petitioner and his guide Dr. Chikkamelurappa @ Dr. B.C. Mylarappa, submitted a complaint to the
Registrar of the University to the effect that, the Thesis submitted by petitioner was plagiarized.
Accordingly, on the basis of the said complaint, the Registrar of the University, by his communication
dated 13th February 2003, referred the Thesis/Dissertation submitted by petitioner to the Institute for
Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Nagarabhavi, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'ISEC') for
verification and to report. Thereafter, on the very next day, i.e. on 14th February 2003, the Registrar of
the said Institute submitted the report stating that, the Thesis of the petitioner has been verified by
experts and a copy of the report was also enclosed to the said communication. The relevant portion of
the said report reads thus:

Please find below a detailed assessment based on my reading of the two Dissertations. In short, I may
summarize here my finding as Page 1226 confirming that there is a prima facie evidence of
plagiarisation on the part of the author of the second Dissertation, who is said to be a doctoral student
of the author of the first Surprisingly, however, even the dissertation by the research guide has
sufficient evidence of plagarisation from other sources.

(Emphasis supplied)

4. On the basis of the said observation made by the expert in his report, the University has referred the
matter to three out-side experts, viz. Dr. S.V. Shirol, Kolhapur, Dr. Venkatarathnam, Retired Senior
Professor, Madurai Kamraj University, and Prof. Hira Adyanthya, Vice Chancellor, Tilak Maharastra
Vidyapeeth, as Chairman of the said Committee. The Committee had also sought for explanation from
the petitioner as wall as from the guide in view of the fact that, there was also an allegation that, there
has been plagiarism in the Thesis of guide also. Accordingly, both the petitioner and his guide, Dr. B.C.
Mylarappa had submitted their respective explanations. The said Committee, upon careful scrutiny of
the report and also the cogent and convincing explanation filed by the petitioner and his guide,
submitted the report and opined that, the allegation about the petitioner's Thesis that it was plagiarised
is baseless. The said report was accepted by the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the respondent
University. In view of the expert report, a decision was taken by the Academic Council and the
Syndicate that, the allegation made against the petitioner alleging plagiarism was mischievous,
motivated and tainted by communal overtones particularly having regard to the fact that, both the
petitioner and guide belongs to Scheduled Caste community. It is the further case of petitioner that, in
spite of the said report, it appears, some persons inimically disposed towards petitioner and also
against the guide, who is now working as the Director of Distance Education at Bangalore University
after his promotion as Professor, have given their complaints. On the basis of the alleged complaints,
the Chancellor namely the first respondent herein, instead of rejecting the said complaints outright, has
gone to the extending of appointing a Commission of Enquiry to go into the allegations of plagiarism
by his Notification dated 30th August 2006 knowing fully well that, the matter had already been
enquired into and the allegations were found to be baseless. At the outset, learned senior counsel
appearing for petitioner submitted that, the initiation of enquiry by the impugned Notification is wholly
arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice and amounts to harassment at the instance of
persons inimically disposed and therefore, liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.
Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned Notification, appointing a Commission of Enquiry to go
into the allegations of plagiarism in the Thesis submitted by petitioner, petitioner herein felt
necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs as started supra including
quashing of the said Notification.

Page 1227

5. The principal submission canvassed by learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the

2 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

allegations of plagiarism made against the petitioner his already been enquired into at the request of the
Bangalore University by a three member Expert Committee, all of whom were Professors and one of
them was Vice Chancellor and they have given a clear-cut finding to the effect that, the allegation of
plagiarism alleged against the petitioner was baseless and therefore, the impugned Notification issued
by first respondent appointing the Commission of Enquiry to go into the allegation of plagiarism, is
wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the appointment of a retired IAS Officer as Head of the
Commission and an Associate Professor of the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore as
Member to enquire into the allegations of plagiarism of Ph.D. Thesis and ghostwriting of Ph.D. Thesis,
is without application of mind. He submitted that, when the Expert Committee comprising of
Professors and Head of Department have expressly stated that, entertaining of such complaints maligns
the reputation of the University and should be discouraged the appointment of retired IAS Officer and
another Professor of Institute of Social and Economic Change to enquire into the allegations of
plagiarism tantamount to reviewing the opinion expressed by the three senior Professors of out-side
University. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, the action of first respondent in issuing the
impugned Notification amounts to exercising power in a wholly arbitrary manner and unreasonably
and consequently results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that, the appointment of a Committee is also a flagrant
violation of principles of natural justice. Having regard to the principles of natural justice, before
issuing the impugned Notification, having regard to its serious consequences on the reputation, honesty
and integrity of the petitioner and which attaches a stigma on him, the so called complaints received
ought to have been sent to the petitioner and that, petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to
have his say in the matter. If petitioner had been afforded an opportunity, he would definitely have
convinced the first respondent that, the complaints are totally mischievous, misconceived and made at
the instance of disgruntled persons who are inimically disposed towards the petitioner. Further, learned
Senior counsel submitted that, the statements made in the impugned Notification that, after the opinion
expressed by the institute of Social and Economic Change that, there was plagiarism and ghostwriting
of Ph.D. Thesis, the University referred the matter to a three member Expert Committee, is factually
incorrect, for the reason that, the expert opinion that, "there was a prima facie case", which itself
indicated that, the matter required an in depth inquiry and therefore, was referred to an Expert
Committee. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the report of Institute of Social and Economic
Change was sent within 24 hours after it was referred to ISEC and this itself indicates that, there could
not have been proper investigation into the matter and further, even the experts name is not disclosed.

Page 1228 Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned Notification proceeds on factually wrong basis.

7. Further, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, one of the three members of
the Expert Committee who examined the allegations and submitted a report to the effect that, the
allegation of plagiarism was baseless, was not well versed in Kannada and in fact, Prof. Shirol and
Prof. Hira Adyanthaya were well versed in Kannada and as far as the other member is concerned, he
studied in Karnataka University and obtained his Masters Degree and that, all the three of them after
thorough discussion have given a categorical finding and even assuming that, one of them was not well
versed in Kannada the same cannot be considered a vitiating circumstance, when he has actively
participated and has given his opinion in full consultation with the other members. To substantiate the
said submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the of K.R. Deb v. Central
Excise and submitted that, Rule of double jeopardy has no application to the disciplinary proceedings
against a civil servant, who has been exonerated in an inquiry and the case came to be closed. The
absence of power under a Rule to do so inhibits the holding of successive inquiries. In the instant case,
the enquiry held into the allegation of plagiarism against the petitioner by referring the matter to a
three Experts Committee was in fact an enquiry under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities
Act, 2000 ('Act' for short) as is quite evident from the communication dated 29th March 2003 vide
Annexure K to the writ petition. When the petitioner has been exonerated of the allegations made
against him, holding of another enquiry, tantamount to holding of second enquiry on the same cause
when the matter had already been closed. Therefore, he submitted that, the action of the first
respondent is in clear violation of the Rule of law enshrined in Articles 14 and 20 (2) of the
Constitution of India besides being opposed to Section 8 of the Act. The principles underlying atrifois
acquit would govern the situation.

3 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

8. Finally, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, the Chancellor becomes
functus officio once the matter is duly enquired into as in the instant case as issue once closed cannot
be reopened, for the same would be without the authority of law and such a re-opening, with the
change in the incumbent of the high office would cut at the very root of the rule of law, subjectivity
being allowed to vitiate the action. Therefore, he concluded by submitting that, the impugned
Notification issued by first respondent is liable to be quashed and the prayer sought for by petitioner is
required to be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.

9. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for first respondent, inter alia, contended and
substantiated that, the impugned Notification issued by first respondent is accordance with the statute
and the Page 1229 Regulations of the Act. He submitted that, petitioner has not made out any good
grounds as such to question the legality or otherwise of the impugned Notification issued by first
respondent. The said respondent, being the Chancellor of the University, after thorough verification of
the entire records and after proper application of mind, in order to maintain the academic excellence
and to uphold the provisions of the statute, by exercising the power conferred upon him under Section
8 of the Act, has felt necessitated to issue the impugned Notification, appointing the Commission of
Inquiry to go into the allegation of plagiarism and ghost-writing in the Ph.D. Thesis submitted by
petitioner. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the earlier direction issued by the Chancellor of the
University by his communication dated 29th March 2003 is not by appointing a Commission of
Inquiry by exercising the power conferred under Section 8 of the Act as mentioned in the
communication and as submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner, but the said
power exercised is under Section 9, which is only a direction to look into the allegations in the interest
of both administration and academic functioning of University and in particular to ensure peace and
tranquility and to protect the property and finances. He specifically pointed out that, though it has been
wrongly mentioned as Section 8, in fact, the Chancellor has exercised the power conferred upon him
under Section 9 of the Act by only giving a direction. Therefore he submitted that, the Committee
constituted pursuant to Annexure K, by the University, is on its own. Therefore, there is no force in the
submission of learned senior counsel when he says that, the Chancellor is not authorized to exercise his
power under Section 8 of the Act, once again. Learned Advocate General further submitted that, mere
non mentioning of the correct section/provision will not take away the power envisaged under the
relevant Section of the Act. Further, he vehemently submitted that, petitioner has indulged in
plagiarism of the worst order in as much as from out of total of approximately 200 pages of Thesis
(dissertation) of the petitioner, over 100 pages are verbatim reproduction of paragraphs and pages from
the other two books written by Dr. B.C. Mytarappa under heading "Krishi Karmika (agricultural
labour) and "Grameena Baduku" (Life in the village). In fact, they are word to word the same. Copy of
the relevant pages of the Book "Krishi Karmika" (Agricultural Labour) written by Dr. B.C. Mylarappa,
from which there has been extensive verbatim reproduction in the Thesis of petitioner is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure R2 and copy of the relevant pages of the book, "Grameena Baduku
Mathu Samajika Chaluvali" from where there has been an extensive verbatim reproduction in the
Thesis of petitioner is produced and marked as Annexure R3 to the statement of objections filed on
behalf of first respondent. Therefore, learned Advocate General specifically pointed out that, from out
of approximately 200 pages of Thesis submitted by petitioner, over 100 pages are verbatim
reproduction of paragraphs and pages from the other two books as aforementioned and as such, this
very conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from seeking any discretionary orders in his favour.
Therefore, he submitted that, petitioner has Page 1230 suppressed these material facts before this Court
and on this ground alone, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed for suppression
of material facts as held by the Apex Court and this Court in series of matters.

10. Further, in the objections statement filed on behalf of first respondent, it is stated that, guide is
selected by the Research students and is not imposed by the University or otherwise. As per the
guidelines relating to Ph.D. Registration, change of guide may be allowed within a period of two years.
In the instant case, petitioner was initially registered with Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty and for over six
years, the Thesis was not submitted. Thereafter, there was a change in the guide, which was permitted
on 29th August 2002 and the Thesis (Dissertation) came to be submitted on 23rd September 2002 i.e.
within a period of less than one month and ultimately the Thesis was accepted. Therefore, learned
Advocate General submitted that, there is something amiss in the entire process, since preparation of

4 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

the Thesis (dissertation) within a period of less than one month could be an impossible task. Further,
nowhere is it stated in the entire Thesis that, any material which the petitioner had collected when he
was being guided by Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty, is used. There is also no acknowledgement of the
contribution from Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty. The implication is that, within a period of less than one
month, the petitioner was guided by the new guide and he conducted research, collected material and
prepared the Thesis (dissertation) and was ultimately awarded Ph.D. The sequence and chronology of
events would clearly indicate that, there is something amiss. In view of the allegation of plagiarism
made against the petitioner, the University requested the ISEC to examine the Thesis submitted by
petitioner. The ISEC came to the definite conclusion that, there is guilty of plagiarism and this report is
a well considered report and the said Committee has been constituted by the University on its own as
per the decision taken by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 8th February 2003 to constitute a
Committee of three persons from outside the State. The ISEC report was not given to the second
Committee and the second committee held only two sittings and submitted its report. He submitted
that, if the ISEC is accused of giving its report within a day and therefore, being hasty in its
conclusion, the second Committee, which gave its report just in two sittings also is equally guilty of
the same charge and at any rate, Prof. R. Venkatarathnam, who was a member of the Committee did
not now Kannada and has stated so and specifically contended that, the second Committee was not
constituted under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the Chancellor has rightly
exercised his power under Section 8 of the Act and appointed the Commission of Inquiry to go into the
matter of plagiarism and ghost-writing in the Thesis submitted by petitioner and requires second look
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he submitted that, the first
respondent has not committed any error or illegality or material irregularity in issuing the impugned
Notification nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds Page 1231 to entertain the instant writ
petition. Hence, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed with
costs.

11. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 has filed an affidavit on behalf of fifth
respondent duly sworn to by fifth respondent wherein it is stated that, Firstly, ISEC in its report has
found that, several chapters written in English by the Guide Dr. Chikka Mylarappa were mechanically
translated into Kannada by the petitioner besides mechanical translation of chapters in petitioner's
Thesis based on what were found in Guide's Thesis. That apart, there are many photographs appearing
in both the Thesis of Guide as well as the petitioner which are identical and they are copies of the same
photographs. The Thesis of the petitioner makes no acknowledgment about the photographs which
have been reproduced with or without permission of the author of the originals from which they have
been taken. Chapter 5 of the petitioner's Thesis (corresponds to page No. 155 and thereafter) is found
to be a verbatim translation of which is found in chapter 1 of the guide's Thesis (page 68 and
thereafter). It is further stated in the Affidavit that, the ISEC report further states thus "I am afraid that
in this case it is not only the student who is guilty of plagiarisation but also the research guide whose
dissertation becomes the source of plagiarisation by the student who has himself not acknowledged his
source and hence, a case of plagiarisation". Further, it is stated that, "there is evidence to show that
what is contained in petitioner's Thesis is literature survey (chapter 1.5) comes largely from that which
is presented as Guide's Thesis in chapter 1 (pages 6 to 40) and here one point verbatim translation
corresponds to chapter in guide's Thesis. Further, as per the meeting of the Syndicate dated 18th
February 2003, the Syndicate has authorized the Vice Chancellor to constitute a Committee of three
persons from outside State with knowledge of Kannada. Accordingly, a Committee consisting of (i)
Prof. Hira Adhyantha (ii) Dr. S.V. Shirol and (iii) Prof. R. Venkatarathnam was constituted; out of
them, Dr Venkataratnam, Retired Senior Professor of Sociology in Madurai Kamaraj University
informed the Chairman of the Committee on 14th May 2003 that, he is not conversant with Kannada
and hence, he would go by the decision of the other members. Further, it is specifically stating that, the
proceedings of the Academic Council dated 13th June 2003 would indicate that, one of the Members
i.e. Shri. Vasudeva Murthy wanted to present is point of view before the Expert Committee which was
not allowed. However, his dissent is recorded in the proceedings of the Academic Council. Further,
from the proceedings of the Syndicate meeting dated 17th June 2003 it could be seen that, one of the
members Shri. G.K. Narayana Reddy who has been Ex. Vice Chancellor of Karnataka University had
requested a copy of the Thesis so as to make out whether the charges of plagiarism are true or
otherwise. However, he was denied a copy of the Thesis on the ground that, the same was not

5 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

available. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 submitted that, in view of the
report of ISEC which has pointed out that, there is plagiarism in the Thesis submitted by petitioner and
also in view of the report submitted by Page 1232 Tilak Maharashtra Vidhya Peeta, which consists of
three experts, out of which one member was not even familiar with Kannada language, when the
Thesis of petitioner is in Kannada language, though the said Committee has found substantial copying
from the Thesis of petitioner's Guide without annotation and analysis, the constitution of Committee by
the Hon'ble Chancellor to enquire into the allegations of plagiarism of the Ph.D. Thesis submitted by
petitioner is justified and the report of the said Committee would bring out the truth. Therefore,
supporting the impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 issued by the Hon'ble Chancellor, he
prayed for dismissal of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

12. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on file threadbare, after consideration of the
rival contentions urged by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for
respondents, after careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations governing the
Ph.D. course in Bangalore University, including the impugned Notification issued by first respondent
Chancellor of the University, the points that arise for consideration in this petition are as follows:

[I] WHETHER, non mentioning of correct Section takes away the power as envisaged under the
Relevant provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000?

[II] WHETHER, the Impugned Notification Issued under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities
Act, 2000 by the first respondent, ordering the appointment of Commission of Inquiry, is sustainable in
law?

Reg. Point [i]: After careful perusal of the communication dated 29th March 2003 bearing No. GS 3
BUM 2003 vide Annexure K issued by first respondent to the Vice Chancellor of the Bangalore
University with regard to the recruitment to the post of Professor of Sociology against backlog vacancy
in Bangalore University, it can be seen that, the first respondent has drawn the attention to the
communications dated 1st February 2003 and 20th March 2003 on the subject and has stated that, as
per the communication dated 1st February 2003, the fourth respondent had stated that, the issue of
plagiarism indulged in by Sri. Venkataramanappa under the guide-ship of Dr. Chikkamellurappa for
preparing his Thesis was being placed in the next meeting of the Syndicate and the decision taken
thereon would be communicated in due course and since the same had not been done, the first
respondent has regretted for the same. Further, it is stated after going through the details of the copies
of the pages of the Thesis of the petitioner - Sri. Venkataramanappa and the books of his guide, Dr.
Chikkamellurappa for preparing the Thesis on 'Grameena Baduku' written by his guide Dr. B.C.
Mylarappa, that, as to how the Evaluation Committee approved the Thesis even when it was headed by
the guide. Further, it is slated that, since there is a prima facie material evidence in support of
plagiarism in the Thesis of the petitioner with the knowledge of the guide, it should not be difficult for
the Syndicate to get the matter Page 1233 enquired into by one or two experts in the field and take
action based on the enquiry report. In the said communication, it is stated, "As plagiarism is found
prima facie, His Excellency, the Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section
8 of the Act, has directed the University to place the matter including the said communication dated
29th March 2003 before the Syndicate and report compliance within one month positively". In the said
communication, instead of mentioning 'Section 9', it is mentioned by mistake, inadvertence or by
oversight, as 'Section 8. On careful reading of the said communication dated 29th March 2003 vide
Annexure K, it is manifest on the face of the tenor/contents of the said communication that, the first
respondent, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, has directed to place the
matter before the Syndicate and to report compliance within a stipulated period and that, the
Chancellor has not exercised the power conferred under Section 8 of the Act, ordering for appointment
of the Commission of Enquiry. It is pertinent to note that, under Section 9 of the Act, the Chancellor
may either suo motu or on the recommendation of the State Government, issue such directions as may
be necessary or expedient in the interest of both administration and academic function of the
University and in particular to ensure peace and tranquility and to protect the property and finances and
under Section 8, particularly Section 8(1) of the said Act, the Chancellor may suo motu or on the
recommendation of the State Government cause an inspection to be made by a Commission of
Enquiry, consisting of one or more persons as he may direct. In the instant case, the Chancellor has

6 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

directed the University to place the matter including his communication before the Syndicate and
report the compliance within a period of one month positively. Mere wrong mentioning of the
provision or non mentioning of the correct provision would not take away the power conferred on the
first respondent under Section 8 of the Act, to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. The tenor of the
direction makes crystal clear that, it is only a direction and not for appointment of a Commission of
Enquiry. Therefore, the said provision exercised by the first respondent has to be read as Section 9 and
not Section 8. Therefore, the submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that,
once power under Section 8 has been exercised, it is not open for the first respondent to once again
exercise the same provision ordering Commission of Enquiry. The submission of the learned senior
counsel that, in the operative portion of the communication dated 29th March 2003 vide Annexure K at
ink page 50 of the writ petition (internal page 2), it is specifically mentioned that, the Chancellor, in
exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 8 of the Act, has directed the University and
therefore, it violates the very Rule of law enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India besides being opposed to Section 9 of the Act and the principles underlying atrifois acquit would
govern the situation, cannot be accepted for the reasons aforesaid. The first respondent has exercised
the power under Section 9 and issued the directions to place the matter before the Syndicate including
the communication and to submit the report regarding the decision taken by Page 1234 the Syndicate,
as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General appearing for first respondent. Further, the said
aspect has been clarified in unequivocal terms by the respondents at paragraph 5 of the statement of
objections filed by first respondent. In the latter portion of the said paragraph 5, it is stated that,"

The so-called direction, which was issued by this respondent as per letter dated 29th March 2003, is in
fact a direction issued under Section 9 of the Act and not under Section 8 though, in the letter, it has
been wrongly mentioned as Section 8. The second Committee, as is apparent from the dates mentioned
above, was constituted not pursuant to Annexure K, but by the University on its own". Therefore, it
may be concluded that, mere wrong mentioning of a provision would not take away the power
envisaged under the relevant Section of the Act.

Reg. Point [ii]: The impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 bearing No. GS 3 BUM 2003 vide
Annexure A is issued by first respondent in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 8
of the Act, by assigning cogent and valid reasons. Baaed on the allegations that, there was a motive
behind the change of guide from Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty, Department of Sociology, Bangalore
University to Dr. Chikkmelurappa in the month of August 2002 and Sri. M. Venkataramanappa
(petitioner herein) submitted his Thesis within a span of one month, i.e. in September 2002, the first
respondent has expressed doubt and suspicion as to how the Thesis made entirely in Kannada could
have been called an original piece of work by the said Committee of Tilak Maharashtra Vidya Peetha
and the University could accept the report, the manner in which the guide had been suddenly changed
and the Thesis submitted in a short period after change of guide gives rise to doubts of some motive
behind the events. Therefore, by invoking Section 8 of the Act, the first respondent has, for the first
time, appointed the Commission of Enquiry consisting of two experts to enquire into the allegations of
plagiarism and ghost writing of the Ph.D. thesis submitted by petitioner. Further, the first respondent
has directed the Commission of Enquiry to also go into the allegations relating to change of guide and
submission of Thesis in a short period and any motive behind the same and to submit the report of
inquiry within three months from the date of issue of the Notification. In view of recording valid
reasons in the impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 vide Annexure A, for appointing the
Commission of Enquiry under Section 8 of the Act, I do not find any error of law, illegality, or material
irregularity in issuing the impugned Notification nor I find any substantial ground made out by
petitioner to interfere in the impugned Notification issued by first respondent. The first respondent,
after being fully convinced and having regard to the magnitude of allegations and also in view of the
contradictory reports submitted by ISEC and the three man Committee, by taking a pragmatic
approach, has thought it fit to exercise the power conferred upon him under Section 8 of the Act, for
the to uphold the dignity, status and standard of the University. Therefore, in view of the well settled
principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and Page 1235 this Court in catena of judgments, while
exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Courts must be reluctant to
interfere in academic matters and it is the prerogative and paramount consideration of the academicians
to take decision in order to uphold the dignity of the Institution. The first respondent being the

7 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

Chancellor of the Bangalore University, when it has come to his knowledge, after thorough evaluation
of the entire material placed before him and after being fully satisfied, has exercised the power
conferred upon him under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that,
interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned
Notification issued by first respondent.

13. After microscopic evaluation of the entire relevant material available on file, it is astonishing to
note that the University has travelled beyond the preamble of the aim, object and reasons envisaged
under the Act in as much as when the University has failed to take appropriate decision for maintaining
the academic excellence and esteem of the University, the first respondent was constrained to exercise
the power conferred upon him under Section 8 for appointing the Commission of Enquiry. It is
significant to note, it is not in dispute that, petitioner had registered himself for doing doctorate (Ph.D.)
in English language and the same has been accepted by the Ph.D. Registration Committee by passing a
resolution in its meeting dated 29th December 1995 and the same was approved. Accordingly, the 5th
respondent - University has sent a communication dated 29th January 1996 approving the registration
of the petitioner to Ph.D. course entitled "Small Farmers in Rural Karnataka - A Sociological Study" in
English language under the guide-ship of one Dr. Y. Narayana Chetty. Thereafter, after lapse of nearly
six years, petitioner has submitted his application for change of guide-ship and to submit his research
work in Kannada. The same has been accepted by the Ph.D. Registration Committee and contrary to
the Regulation of the Ph.D. course, the Bangalore University has permitted the change of guide and to
submit his research work in Kannada. The University has permitted the petitioner to submit the
research work in Kannada language entitled "Small Farmers in Rural Karnataka - A Sociological
Study" instead of submitting his research work in 'English' as was registered and granted earlier
without fresh registration by the Ph.D. Registration Committee. However, the Ph.D. Registration
Committee, has accorded permission for change of guide and to submit the research work in 'Kannada'
language, much contrary to the relevant provisions of the Regulation governing the Ph.D. course in the
Bangalore University. As per Section 2.7 of the Regulation governing the Ph.D. course in the
Bangalore University, it is mandatory that a candidate should complete his/her research work and
submit the thesis to the University within five years from the date of provisional registration and as per
Section 2.8(a), extension beyond five years may be permitted by the Ph.D. Registration Committee on
the recommendation of the guide/s and with the approval of the University for a maximum period of
one year. But, in Page 1236 the case on hand, after lapse of more than six years the petitioner has
sought permission and exactly after six years seven months, the Ph.D. Registration Committee has
accorded permission, contrary to the period of five years stipulated under the Regulations governing
the same. That too, the extension period beyond five years that the Ph.D. Registration Committee can
permit is for a maximum period of one year. In the case on hand, it is surprising to note as to how, the
said permission has been accorded contrary to the Regulations. Moreover, no substantive material as
such has been produced before this Court to establish that, the period has been extended beyond the
period envisaged under Section 2.7 of the Regulation governing the Ph.D. course especially, when
there is specific provision for extension of period by only one year and that too, only if such
application is submitted within five years from the date of first registration and on the recommendation
of the guide. Therefore, the permission, which is accorded by the Ph.D. Registration Committee is well
over the stipulated period of five years and extension of one year, as envisaged under Sections 2.7 and
2.8(a) of the Regulations of Ph.D. course in Bangalore University.

14. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that, there was a change in guide which was permitted on
29th August 2002 and the Thesis (dissertation) came to be submitted on 23rd September 2002. That
means, the thesis is submitted within a very short period of lees than one month and ultimately, the
Thesis has also been accepted. When the petitioner could not complete his Ph.D. and submit his Thesis
for nearly six years seven months in the subject chosen by him, as referred above, however, after
obtaining change of guide and to submit the Thesis in 'Kannada' language, he has submitted the same
within a short period of one month and beyond the stipulated period, contrary to the Regulation. More
surprisingly, the said Thesis has been accepted and doctorate has been awarded to petitioner. Therefore,
as rightly pointed out by respondents in their statement of objections, having regard to the magnitude
of violation of the statute and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, as referred
above, the first respondent has rightly exercised the power conferred upon him. Therefore, the

8 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that, the impugned Notification
is issued by first respondent by exercising the power under Section 8 of the Act for the second time
cannot be accepted nor the said submission can be sustained.

15. Further, it is significant to note regarding the alleged indulgence of the petitioner in plagiarism of
the Thesis (dissertation) of the petitioner that, from out of approximately 200 pages of Thesis
submitted by petitioner, over 100 pages consists of verbatim reproduction of the two books written by
his guide Dr. B.C Mylarappa, viz. 'Krishi Karmika' (agricultural labour) and 'Grameena Baduku'. In
fact, they are word to word the same. The pages of the Thesis of petitioner which are verbatim
reproduction of the pages of the Books aforementioned pointed out in the statement of objections are
extracted at paragraph 2 of the objections filed on behalf of first respondent. It is worthwhile to extract
the same as under:

Page 1237 Sl. No. Pages of the Thesis of the petitioner Pages in the Books of Dr. B.C. Mylarappa 1-2
1-2 of 'Krishi Kamikaru' 7-11 4-8 of -do-

14-35 9-36 of -do-

36-37 37-39 of -do-

38-46, 47 41-51, 39 -do-

48-69 103-130 of Grameena Baduku 89-112 140-175 -do-

188-190 6-9 of krishi Karmikaru 192-200 102-116 of Grameena Baduku 171-172 of Krisghi
Karmikaru 155-175 52-78 of -do-

205-206 171 of Grameena Baduku However, this fact has not been whispered in the entire writ
petition. Whenever a person approaches the Court seeking some relief, by invoking the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, he or she must approach the Court with clean hands and state the true facts. It
is crystal clear that, under Section 8 of the Act, the Chancellor has in fact got the right/power to
appoint the Commission of Enquiry to go into the matter taking into consideration the magnitude of the
subject matter, the interest of the institution in particular and public in general, to uphold the academic
excellence and not to tarnish the image of the Institution.

16. The Chancellor in his wisdom and being the supreme authority of the Institution, has exercised the
power conferred upon him under Section 8 of the Act to uphold justice, equity, dignity and to hold the
institution in high esteem. Petitioner, instead of participating in the Commission of Enquiry, appointed
by the Chancellor and substantiating his stand, by taking the grounds that are taken in the writ petition,
has rushed before this Court and presented the instant writ petition.

17. In view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena
of judgments, I am of the view that, the matter requires detailed consideration as to the question
whether there is alleged plagiarism or not. The said question is a finding of fact and can be gone into
and answered only by the Commission of Enquiry. The dictionary meaning of the word 'plagiarize' is,
to copy ideas, passages of text, etc. from someone else's work and use them as if they were one's own.
In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by first respondent in their objections statement that, over 100
pages of Thesis consists of verbatim reproduction of books written by the guide of the petitioner, viz.
Dr. B.C. Mylarappa @ Chikkamelurappa. The question as to whether there is 'plagiarism' or not in the
Thesis submitted by petitioner is purely a finding of fact which should be gone into by the Commission
of Enquiry Page 1238 alone, consisting of academic luminaries, proficient in the field and this Court
cannot sit in judgment and decide by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

18. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated supra, I am of the
considered view that, when the Chancellor, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
and the magnitude of plagiarism alleged against the petitioner and having regard to the contradictory
findings given by two different experts, has thought it fit to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, by
exercising the power conferred upon him by the Statute under Section 8 of the Act, and has rightly

9 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O ... vs The Chancellor, Bangalore ... on ... https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498810/

done so, it is not justifiable for this Court to interfere in the same and stall the proceedings. The truth
would be known only from the outcome of the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

19. Further, so far as the reliance placed by learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.R. Deb v. Central Excise in concerned, I am of the
considered view that, there is no dispute, quarrel or second thought with regard to the said well settled
law laid by the Apex Court in the said judgment. But the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in
the referred judgment is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that, the facts and
circumstances of the said case are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on the aforementioned judgment is
of no assistance to him in the instant writ petition.

20. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, when it has
come to the knowledge of the Chancellor that, there is prima facie case of plagiarism in the Thesis
submitted by petitioner, and there are conflicting views expressed by the earlier two experts, he being
the supreme authority, by exercising the power conferred under Section 8 of the Act, has appointed the
Commission of Enquiry, to uphold the truth, dignity and esteem of the Institution. When such is the
situation, as held by the Apex Court in host of judgments, this Court cannot direct the University to
disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and Regulation made by the University itself and this
Court cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to
disobey the laws and that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of
academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts
generally can be.

21. Therefore, in the tight of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into
consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter, as referred above, the writ petition filed by
petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

10 sur 10 19/03/2022 16:09