- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT 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., Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 1 (2015) 5 SCC 549 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14740 WP No. 104745 of 2025 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. 11. The petitioner shall be entitled to be defended by an Advocate of his choice. The enquriy shall continue after the petitioner being allowed to be defended by an Advocate. 12. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 123