Karnataka HC Quashes K-SET Probe Report Against Mysore Professor, Citing No Legal Authority And No Hearing

In brief

The question

1. Whether the committee was lawfully constituted under Section 14(8) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, or otherwise had statutory authority to conduct the investigation and submit the impugned report

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

The Court quashed the inquiry report as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction or authority of law.

It directed the University of Mysore to issue the petitioner, within four weeks of receiving the order, a service certificate stating that no vigilance or disciplinary proceedings had been held, were pending, or were contemplated against him

01Facts

The petitioner, a University of Mysore professor and former K-SET coordinator, challenged a report by a government-constituted committee investigating alleged irregularities in K-SET examinations conducted from 2019 to 2021.

pp. 3–8, 14–15

The committee was constituted by a Government Order dated 17 December 2022 and, after proceedings on 17 January 2023, recorded findings adverse to the petitioner.

pp. 3–8, 14–15

The State contended that the report was only a preliminary investigation and not an inquiry under Section 14(8) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.

pp. 3–8, 14–15

The petitioner sought to quash the report and obtain a service certificate stating that no vigilance or disciplinary proceedings had been held, were pending, or were contemplated against him

pp. 3–8, 14–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the committee was lawfully constituted under Section 14(8) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, or otherwise had statutory authority to conduct the investigation and submit the impugned report

pp. 8–14

ii.2. Whether the report could stand when it recorded adverse findings against the petitioner without giving him notice or an opportunity to respond

pp. 38–41

iii.3. Whether the report was amenable to challenge despite the State’s contention that it was only preliminary

pp. 39–41

03Law Applied

Section 14(8) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, provides for action against a Vice-Chancellor through a committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court; a committee not constituted under that provision, or under another source of legal authority, cannot exercise that statutory function

pp. 8–14

The principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse findings with serious civil consequences are recorded against a person

pp. 38–41

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the legality of the impugned report

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 2000 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Government Order constituting the committee was not traceable to Section 14(8) or any other statutory provision and that the committee’s formation followed communications from public representatives and the Higher Education Minister.

pp. 9–14, 38–41

It therefore held that the committee lacked demonstrated legal authority.

pp. 9–14, 38–41

The report also contained findings capable of prejudicing the petitioner’s eligibility for Vice-Chancellor appointments, yet he had not been given notice or a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations.

pp. 9–14, 38–41

The State’s description of the report as merely preliminary did not defeat review because its adverse findings could produce serious civil consequences

pp. 9–14, 38–41