IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 4811 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.M.P.GIRIDHARAN, S/O C.V.R.NAMBIAR, AGED 47 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PILICODE,KASARGODE.(RESIDING AT CHANDRAGEETHAM, SOUTH BAZAR, PAYYANNOR, KANNUR) BY MR.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.M.R.HARIRAJ, MR.SURAJ.S, MR.P.A.KUMARAN, SMT.NEELIMA V.NAIR, MR.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, TRICHUR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH(CONVENER, ENQUIRY COMMITTEE) KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, TRICHUR. 3. DR.R.GOPINATH, HEAD,INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., TRICHUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY R3 BY ADV. MR.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR, MR.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4811/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BGA1-41711/99(iv) DTD. 20/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.28(1)2000-NATP/CGP-II/72 DTD.9/5/2001 ISSUED BY SHRI.U.C.SHARMA, NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR (NATP). P3: COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN INDIAN NALEEKERA JOURNEL OF 12/2000. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.28(1)/2000-NATP/CGP-II/172 DTD. 3/06/2004 ISSUED BY SHRI.A.BANDYOPADHYAY, NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR (CGP). P5: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE SUNDAY TIMES OF INDIA DTD. 25/11/2001. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/11/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/L3/1917/2002 DTD. 27/02/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DR-39/2003 DTD. 8/04/2003 ISSUED BY PROF.R.VIKRAMAN NAIR, PH.D, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR. P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/04/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, HIGH LEVAL ENQUIRY COMMITTEE ON “KERASUDHA”. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7/05/2003 ISSUED BY DR.W.E.EIPESON, CHAIRMAN OF THE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER. P12: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN 10/2004. P13: COPY OF NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE HINDU DAILY DTD. 19/11/2007. P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Kss ..2/- ..2..... WPC.NO.4811/2008 W P15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P16: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P17: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P18: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/05/2008. P19: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DTD. 11/09/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/06/2008 ISSUED BY DR.W.E.EIPSON. P21: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 22/05/2008. P22: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PROGRESS REPORT DTD. 4/08/2000 BY THE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P23: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION CENTRE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P24: COPY OF THE REPLY NO.ATIC/01/07 DTD. 18/06/2008 GIVEN TO SRI. N.S.DAMODHARAN, UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P25: COPY OF THE RESPONSE DTD. 26/10/2007 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, FINANCE MINISTRY. P26: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PVC 101/2001 DTD. 30/11/2001. P27: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.GA/L3/12784/2008 DTD. 13/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No4811/2008-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to finalise enquiry proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 after giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend the enquiry etc. The petitioner herein is working as Associate Professor in the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Pilicode under the first respondent University. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 20/01/2000 of the Comptroller of the Kerala Agricultural University, the petitioner started a research on sweet toddy under the Kerala Agricultural University Plan Project. It was funded by the University and later the project continued under the National Agricultural Technology Project. 2. The third respondent herein is the head of Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara under the same University. It appears that there was a complaint regarding the duplication of the research work and, therefore, the University as per Ext.P7 constituted a High Level Committee consisting of three members to enquire into the whole issues on 'Kerasudha'. The various terms of reference have also been mentioned in Ext.P7 order. Complaining about the inaction on the part of the committee, to go into the disputed W.P.(C). No.4811/2008 -:2:- aspects between the petitioner and the third respondent and to finalise the enquiry, he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining his contentions in the matter. The third respondent also has taken the stand that the enquiry has to be completed so as to bring out the truth and to disprove the false allegation against him that the 'Kerasudha' project conceived and implemented by him and other teachers in the main campus of the University was a fabricated research work. 4. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit also. On behalf of the University an affidavit has been filed which is dated 08/08/2008. The Registrar of the University is the deponent of the affidavit. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner has a case that his findings were taken away by the third respondent who is the head of the Instructional Farm, Vellanikkara and the third respondent has made announcement that he invented 'Kerasudha'. It is pointed out that the University has constituted a fresh Enquiry Committee with the same terms as per Order dated 16/02/2008 and 07/04/2008. The Enquiry Committee had found that the research conducted by the petitioner is genuine. The Executive Committee of the University accepted the Enquiry Committees findings and issued an order dated 14/07/2008, and the petitioner was requested to submit result of W.P.(C). No.4811/2008 -:3:- the research to the University, which he has refused till date. The stand taken in the affidavit is that since the Enquiry Committee constituted by the University had filed a report, which has been accepted by the University, the writ petition has become infructuous. 5. The petitioner has produced in the reply affidavit various documents including the report of the Committee that was appointed later by order dated 07/04/2008 as Ext.P21. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only on completion of the enquiry that was undertaken by the University, by forming a High Level Committee as per Ext.P7, alone his grievances will be redressed. It is pointed out that there was no justification to reconstitute the committee and the attempt made by the University during the pendency of the writ petition without getting permission of this Court to constitute a new committee to go into the terms of reference is also plainly without any justification. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the University submitted that the order dated 07/04/2008, happened to be passed in the light of the circumstances explained therein and later by another order dated 14/07/2008, the matter was deliberated upon by the Executive Committee in its 450th meeting and they have taken various decisions and accordingly, the following orders were issued: W.P.(C). No.4811/2008 -:4:- “ 1. The High Level Committee constituted as per order 1st read above is treated as cancelled. 2. The Director of Research, Kerala Agricultural University will pursue action based on the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted as per order 2nd read above. 3. The research work of Dr.M.P.Giridharan on “Standardisation of extraction and preservation techniques of Palm Sap (toddy) from coconut” is approved as the only Faculty Research Committee approved project of the University in this topic. 4. It is decided to initiate legal/disciplinary action against Dr.M.P.Giridharan for not having complied with the direction of the University to submit the technology for “Neera production”.” 7. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that nothing survives in this writ petition and the direction sought to continue the deliberations of the High Level Committee appointed as per Ext.P7 cannot be granted. W.P.(C). No.4811/2008 -:5:- 8. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also submitted that the allegations raised against his project are not really true. It is also submitted that the third respondent did not take part in the deliberation of the committee formed as per order dated 07/04/2008. 9. It is true that the University by an order dated 07/04/2008 reconstituted the committee which was formed as per Ext.P7. The said order passed by the University is not under challenge in this writ petition. The report of the said Enquiry Committee has been discussed by the Executive Committee and proceedings have been issued accepting the report of the committee as well as approving research work of the petitioner as the only Faculty Research Committee approved project of the University in this topic. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the action taken by the University in that regard needs any adjudication before this Court at this stage. Of course, if the petitioner has got any complaint regarding the research work made by the third respondent or the third respondent has got any complaint in respect of the research work undertaken by the petitioner, it is up to them to approach the appropriate forum. 10. With regard to the complaint raised by the petitioner that the enquiry report itself does not satisfy the requirements, it is upto the W.P.(C). No.4811/2008 -:6:- petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the findings of the report, to agitate the matter in appropriate proceedings before the authorities of the University. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms