Karnataka High Court

Prof. Jaganath L Rathod vs The Registrar on 30 October, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740
                                                           WP No. 104745 of 2025


                      HC-KAR


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                               DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                               BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 104745 OF 2025 (S-DE)
                      BETWEEN:
                      PROF. JAGANATH L RATHOD,
                      AGE: 54 YEARS,
                      OCC: PROFESSOR AT KUPG KARWAR,
                      R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
                      KADIBAG, KARWAR - 581 303.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. A. D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1. THE REGISTRAR,
                         KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
                         DHARWAD - 580 001.

                      2.   THE ENQUIRY OFFICER/DISCIPLINARY
                           AUTHORITY/REPT. BY. DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
                           KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
                           DHARWAD - 580 001.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
                      (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High             THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,        227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
Dharwad
                      OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER SETTING
                      ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTING THE MEMO OF APPEARANCE
                      FILED BY THE SRI. S.S.F. ADVOCATE TO DEFEND PETITIONER IN
                      DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY, DATED 12/07/2025 PASSED BY
                      RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DE.ONO.KAVV/CAASUE/SHIKSHAK-04/96,
                      PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE
                      PETITIONER TO APPOINT ADVOCATE TO DEFEND HIS CASE
                      BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.,
                                -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740
                                        WP No. 104745 of 2025


HC-KAR


    THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 12.07.2025 by which the claim of the petitioner to

be defended by a legal practitioner / advocate comes to be

rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni

appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. K.L.

Patil representing respondents.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

4. The petitioner is appointed as a Lecturer at the

Karnataka University (hereinafter referred to as 'University' for

short) in the Department of Marine Biology at the Post Graduate

Centre, Karwar. On certain omissions and commissions, the

petitioner was sought to be proceeded departmentally by

issuance of a charge sheet. The petitioner in the enquiry seeks to

be defended by an advocate on the score that the Presenting

Officer so appointed by the University was a law graduate and an

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740

HC-KAR

intermittent legal practitioner. This comes to be rejected by the

University on the score that the rules or laws do not authorize

permitting a legal practitioner to be defended. It is this action of

the University that has drawn the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition.

5. The learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni

appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Rule

8 of the Karnataka University Employees Classification, Control

and Appeal Rules, 1998 permits the delinquent employee to be

defended by a legal practitioner if the University is represented

by a legal practitioner. The learned counsel would seek to place

reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court,

all of which are followed by this Court to buttress his submission.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. K.L. Patil

appearing for the respondent - University submits that the Rule

is only directory and not mandatory and would further contend

that the Presenting Officer is a law graduate and is not an active

legal practitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to seek

the assistance of a legal practitioner in the Department of

Enquiry. The afore narrated facts are a matter of record. The

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740

HC-KAR

issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the petitioner is

entitled to be defended by a legal practitioner in the Department

of Enquiry. Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as follows.

"The employee for representing his case may take the assistance of any other employee of the University. Where the University has appointed a Legal practitioner to present the case on its behalf, the employee shall not be denied the right to be represented by the legal practitioner if so wishes."

7. The Rule indicates that if the employee is so desires

and if the employer is represented by a legal practitioner, should

be entitled to be defended by an advocate. Jurisprudence is

replete with the issue of whether an employee would be entitled

to be defended by an advocate or otherwise.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra v.

Delhi University1 has held as follows.

11. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 549, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

27. On 19-12-2009 the enquiry officer concluded the inquiry pursuant to the memoranda dated 27-8-2007 and 16-10-2007 and submitted his reports, both dated 23-2-2010. A copy of the inquiry report pursuant to the memorandum dated 16-10-2007 was forwarded to the

(2015) 5 SCC 549

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740

HC-KAR

appellant asking him to submit his reply within twenty-

one days. The appellant requested the Registrar, University of Delhi to supply certain documents which were referred to by the enquiry officer and submitted interim reply on 18-3-2010. Subsequently, the Executive Council passed Resolution No. 281 dated 25-3-2010 disengaging the appellant from the services with immediate effect and subsequently a memorandum dated 26-3-2010 was issued to the said effect. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the appellant by the Registrar.

28. This Court on 5-4-2010 [Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, SLP (C) No. 13753 of 2009, order dated 5-4-2010 (SC), wherein it was directed:"The special leave petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to challenge the termination. All contentions and question of law are left open. We are sure that if and when the petitioner challenges the termination, it will be disposed of expeditiously."] Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, SLP (C) No. 13753 of 2009, order dated 5-4-2010 (SC), wherein it was directed: dismissed SLPs (C) Nos. 13753 of 2009 and 14150 of 2009 filed by the appellant challenging the High Court order dated 21-5-2009 in Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi [Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1541 : (2009) 111 DRJ 175] but granted the liberty to the appellant to challenge the punitive orders. The appellant was permitted to take all the pleas taken in the SLP including the challenge to the validity and propriety of the inquiry proceedings conducted by University of Delhi. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 1-3-2012 [Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1286 : (2012) 187 DLT 741] .

29. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was illegality and unfairness in the initiation and conduct of inquiry in regard to the allegations which led to the removal of the appellant. It was also submitted that the Chancellor (Bundelkhand University) has not written to Delhi University suggesting action to be taken against the appellant. Despite the same, information regarding contents of charges was solicited unilaterally by the Registrar of Delhi

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740

HC-KAR

University based on newspaper reports and the communication dated 4-8-2005 sent by UGC to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The learned counsel further contended that in the absence of the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University suggesting action against the appellant, UGC need not have, even sent the above communication.

30. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted as it was always open to the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings against its employee, with regard to any misconduct or dereliction of duty if found during performance of duty while posted in the office or on deputation. In the present case, it was well within the jurisdiction of the University to initiate such a departmental enquiry when it is noticed that its employee was prematurely removed from an office to which he was deputed to on account of certain charges against him.

The Apex Court in RAMESH CHANDRA (supra) follows earlier judgments in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay V/s. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath and others reported in (1983)1 SCC 124 and in the case of J.K.Aggarwal V/s. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd and others, reported in (1991)2 SCC 283 to permit the employee who was facing departmental enquiry to be defended by an Advocate, on the score that the Enquiry Officer in an enquiry would generally be a legally trained mind. The judgment rendered in the case of RAMESH CHANDRA would become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand."

9. The fact that the Presenting Officer of the University

is a law graduate is not in dispute. The only defense of the

respondent - University is that he is not an active legal

practitioner, but only an intermittent legal practitioner. If the

Presenting Officer is a law graduate and an intermittent legal

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740

HC-KAR

practitioner, the right of the petitioner cannot be stifled by not

permitting him to be defended. In the light of the law being clear

and the facts being clearer, the petition deserves to succeed.

10. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

12.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 stands quashed.