1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE2D DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22805/2016 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: Dr.Mahadevaiah S/o Kempaiah Aged about 46 Years Assistant Professor and Course Coordinator Department of Studies in Sugar Technology Sir.M.Visveswaraiah Post Graduate Center Tubinakere Mandya – 571402. Residing at: No.65, 6th Cross Bapuji Layout, Bogadi Mysore – 5600026. (By Sri.T.S.Venkatesha, Adv.) ….Petitioner The Registrar & Ex-Officio Secretary of Syndicate Mysore University Crawford Hall Mysore 570005. AND:
1. 2 The Registrar (Evaluation) Mysore University, Crawford Hall Mysore 570005.
2. (By Sri.T.P.Rajendrakumar Sungay, Adv.) ….Respondents This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 09.02.2016, Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2; quash the decision No.2015/6.24 held in Syndicate Council Meeting dated 19.06.2015 Annexure-S2 and decision No.2016/1.19 in Syndicate Council Meeting Dated 19.01.2016 Annexure-W1. Etc., This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Petitioner is assailing the order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure-A) issued by second respondent and consequentially to quash the Decision No.2015/6.24 held in Syndicate Council Meeting dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-S2) and Decision No.2016/1.19 in Syndicate Council Meeting dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-W1).
2. Petitioner was recognized as Guide as per Regulation 4 of Ph.D Regulation, 2010. One Mr.Masih Ansari Dezfuly opted petitioner as a Guide for his 3 Doctoral Program. Said Mr.Masih Ansari Dezfuly was permitted to research and his enrolment was confirmed. The student appeared before the Pre-Registration Colloquium Committee and said committee recommended for his registration work entitled “EFFECTS OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC FLOCCULANTS ON SUGARCANE JUICE CLARIFICATION : A COMPARATIVE STUDY”. On 23.09.2013, Colloquium Committee opined that, the Thesis and his research are satisfactory and recommended for evaluation of Thesis by examiners. Mr.Masih Ansari dezfuly’s research work was sent to Two external examiner’s and examiners appreciated the research however suggested some modification and on incorporation of modification, recommended the Thesis for acceptance of the award of Ph.D. Accordingly, incorporating the modifications as suggested by the external examiners evaluation, revised Thesis was submitted and Doctoral Committee certified that said 4 Mr.Masih Ansari dezfuly has revised his Thesis very carefully as per the suggestions given by the examiners and recommended further for the award of Ph.D. In the meanwhile, one Dr.Thangamuthu had alleged plagiarism in the Journal and University had probed the plagiarism allegation by two experts namely Dr.Kabilan and Dr.NBL.Prasad.
3. The University vide its Syndicate Meeting dated 19.06.2015, annulled the registration of Mr.Masih Ansari dezfuly and suspended the Guideship of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. After suspension, issued show cause notice for which the petitioner sought certain documents. The University again in its meeting held on 09.01.2016 suspended the Guideship of petitioner for a period of 5 years. Petitioner submitted his explanation countering allegation of Dr.P.Thangamuthu and the observations of Dr.Kabilan and Dr.NBL.Prasad on 03.02.2016. Prior to the 5 explanations/objections offered by the petitioner, order dated 09.01.2016 came to be passed suspending the Guideship of the petitioner for a period of 5 years and cancelled the registration of the student Mr.Masih Ansari Dezfuly. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri.T.S.Venkatesha, appearing for petitioner contends that there was no element of plagiarism in the Thesis submitted by the student under the Guideship of the petitioner. The complaint alleged by Dr.Thangamuthu as regards copying the extract which was published by him in the year 1984 in the 48th Annual Convention of Sugar Technologists’ Association of India and 2009 in Invention Intelligence, a by monthly published by the National Research and Development Corporation, New Delhi was hyperlinked with a citation referring to Dr.Thangamuthu’s work; It is clear from where the material was derived.
5. 6 Secondly, it was contended that Clause-8.9 of the Ph.D Regulations, 2010 of the University of Mysore provides that the Registrar (Evaluation) shall affix a Seal with the University Emblem stating that the Thesis was accepted for the award of Ph.D degree as per 2010 Regulation and issue this copy to the candidate. After the notification is issued, the thesis will be hosted on the website and the same will be sent to Inflibnet, as prescribed by UGC. Clause 8.10 contemplates about plagiarism charges and subsequent actions. In terms of this clause, if the University receives complaint of plagiarism with sufficient evidence or if any examiner points out occurrence of plagiarism in the thesis, the thesis shall be sent to a subject expert selected by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of experts forwarded by the BOS, to verify and ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism. Sub-Clause (b) of 8.10 provides that if plagiarism is proved, then a show cause notice shall be 7 issued to the candidate and the Guide. After reply to the show cause notice, all documents/reports/answers to the show cause notice shall be placed before the Syndicate for the appropriate action including possible annulment of registration of the candidate and initiation of disciplinary action against the candidate and the Guide. This mandatory requirement was not followed by the respondents while passing the impugned order at Annexure-A.
6. Thirdly, the learned counsel submits that the Vice-Chancellor of the University has selected two subject experts Dr.S.Kabilan and Dr.NBL.Prasad. Dr.Kabilan’s report suggests that only one difference can be found from both the work, “Dr.P.Thangamuthu studied in a time interval of minutes but Dr.Mahadevaiah studies in a time interval of days.” Complete thesis evaluated using the Shodhagana and Anti-plagiarism Software shows 27% plagiarism present. 8 The order of the University in much as plagiarism software makes it clear that 30% of plagiarism is acceptable, 27% plagiarism pointed out in Dr.Kabilan’s report is within the acceptable limits and as such no punitive action is warranted. Dr.NBL.Prasad, the second subject expert only supports the report of Dr.S.Kabilan and no independent analysis is made to arrive at the conclusion.
7. Nextly, the learned counsel submits that the complaint was made by Dr.Thangamuthu vide his letter dated 09.07.2014 whereas the Doctoral Committee certified that the candidate Mr.Masih Ansari Dezfuly is eligible for the Doctoral Degree and recommended to accept the thesis for the award of Doctorate of Philosophy of the University of Mysore. The recommendation made by the Doctoral Committee suggests do not point out any plagiarism of any nature since the same is recommended subsequent to the 9 complaint dated 09.07.2014. Thesis not having come to the public domain, there was no occasion for Dr.Thangamuthu to file a complaint alleging plagiarism. Further, the learned counsel placing reliance on Section 52 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 contends that Copy right work to certain extent relating to research is permissible. A decision was taken by the Syndicate on 19.06.2015, prior to issuance of the show cause notice at Annexure-Q which is undated not in the usual pattern of letterhead, signed by the Registrar (Evaluation) with date, as 31.08.2015. The same recommendation was approved for the second time by the Syndicate on 19.01.2016. Though a member of the Syndicate , in the meeting held on 23.02.2016, raised the point in much as not following the procedures, the respondents negated the same for the reason that the matter is pending before the Court. In fact, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner on 18.04.2016. The explanation/objections filed by the petitioner on 10 03.02.2016 was not considered before passing the impugned order which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for setting aside the orders impugned herein, allowing the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel T.P.Rajendrakumar Sungay, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the University received the complaint from one Dr.P.Thangamuthu, Secretary, The South Indian Sugarcane & Sugar Technologists’ Association, Chennai, who had written a letter on 09.07.2014 complaining that the research article by Mr.Masih Ansari Dezfuly carries the same research done by Mr.Thangamuthu in the year 1984. Pursuant to the receipt of the said complaint, the respondents sought opinion of a subject expert by name Dr.Kabilan, under the Orders of the Vice-Chancellor of the University who suggested to seek one more opinion from 11 another subject expert and as such the opinion of another subject expert namely, Dr.NBL.Prasad, Andhra Pradesh was obtained who concurred with the opinion of Dr.Kabilan. The opinion received from the subject experts were placed before the Syndicate of the University which after detailed discussion, has resolved to cancel the Guideship of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. There was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the explanation to the show cause notice and the said reply was filed by the petitioner only after the issuance of the impugned order at Annexure-A. The learned counsel further submitted that the Regulations governing Ph.D provides that the Syndicate shall take appropriate action in the matter of plagiarism and as the Syndicate was fully convinced of plagiarism committed by the student of the petitioner under his Guideship, the action taken by the Syndicate in passing the impugned order is in accordance with law and does not call for interference by this Court. 12 9. It is submitted that plagiarism is a serious offence in the Academics and it should not be allowed to continue. Once the Academic experts in the field have decided and reported about the plagiarism, the Academic Bodies of the University have taken a decision, the Courts cannot interfere with the same in the interest of the research. The action taken by the respondents is in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the guidelines. In the circumstances, the impugned orders does not call for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. The points that arise for consideration in this petition are:
1. Whether the University has followed the procedure prescribed in the Ph.D Regulations 13 2010 of University of Mysore, while passing the impugned order at Annexure-A and is sustainable in law?.
2. Whether the plagiarism alleged against the petitioner is established to take punitive action of suspending the Guideship of the petitioner for 5 years?.
12. Both the points are inter-linked, hence answered in common as under: In the background of the facts aforesaid, it is to be seen, what is plagiarism. In P.Ramanatha Aiyar THE LAW LEXICON, legal dictionary, “plagiarism” is defined as “Publishing borrowed thoughts as original; stealing literary matter from the work of another author.” 13. In the case of DR.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA V/S. THE CHANCELLOR, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN, BANGALORE-1 AND OTHERS, reported in ILR2007KAR112the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
14. “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.” 14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.P.M.PARAMESHWARAMURTHY AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR2013KAR209has held thus: “57. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with Romantic movement. Since the 18th century, new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, 15 where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence. Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud, and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. For professors and researchers, plagiarism is punished by sanctions ranging from suspension to termination, along with the loss of credibility and perceived integrity. In academic world plagiarism by students is a very serious offence that can result in punishments such as a failing grade on the particular assignment or for the course. For cases of repeated plagiarism or for cases in which a student commits severe plagiarism (example submitting a copied piece of writing as original work) a student may be suspended or expelled. In many universities, academic degree or awards may be revoked as a penalty for plagiarism. Therefore, plagiarism 16 in short means theft of some one’s creativity, ideas, language and it is a form of cheating. In academic circles, it is considered as dishonesty and academic fraud. It is morally and ethically unacceptable. It shows lack of character.” 15. It is trite that the question as to whether there is plagiarism or not in the thesis submitted by the student under the Guideship of the petitioner is purely a finding of fact which should be gone into by the experts in the field and the same cannot be decided by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Now, what is required to be examined is whether the respondents have followed the due procedure while initiating the punitive action of suspending the Guideship of the petitioner.
16. Judicial review is not to the decision but to the decision making process. Court is concerned with 17 such process of decision making. If such process, found to be arbitrary, decision requires to be set aside. Clause 8.10 of the Ph.D Regulations 2010 of the University of Mysore runs thus: “8.10 Plagiarism charges and subsequent actions: (a) If the University receives complaint of plagiarism with sufficient evidence or if any examiner points out occurrence of plagiarism in the thesis, the thesis shall be sent to a subject expert selected by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of experts forwarded by the BOS, to verify and ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism. (b) If plagiarism is proved, then a show cause notice shall be issued to the candidate and the Guide. After reply to the show cause notice, all documents/reports/answers to the show cause notice shall be placed before the Syndicate for the appropriate action including possible annulment of registration of the candidate and initiation of disciplinary action against the candidate and the Guide. 18 17. In terms of this Clause 8.10, it is mandatory that a subject experts’ opinion has to be taken, selected by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of experts forwarded by the BOS. If plagiarism is proved, then a show cause notice shall be issued to the candidate and Guide. It is only after issue of show cause notice, the matter has to be placed before the Syndicate for appropriate action. It is evident at the first instance, the matter was placed before the Syndicate on 19.06.2015 before the issuance of the show cause notice. The show cause notice is not in the letterhead of the University. It is on a plain sheet of paper, which is unusual pattern of issuing the show cause notice by the University as contended by the petitioner. Natural justice is the fundamental principle which is required to be followed before initiating any punitive action. Without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation to the show cause notice issued on 19 31.08.2015, the matter was placed before the Syndicate for the second time on 19.01.2016 wherein, the decision taken in the earlier meeting on 19.06.2015 was reiterated.
18. Indisputably, the petitioner has filed the explanation/objections to the show cause notice on 03.02.2016. The University had no occasion to examine the contentions of the petitioner. As such, the order passed at Annexure-A without offering adequate opportunity to the petitioner to show cause his case is illegal and the same requires to be set aside on this point alone. The Doctoral Committees’ recommendation dated 09.09.2014 was subsequent to the complaint of Dr.Thangamuthu dated 09.07.2014. There is no whisper about the plagiarism or the complaint against the petitioner and the student. This raises the suspicion about the alleged plagiarism. The subject expert Dr.Kabalin’s report indicates 27% of plagiarism as 20 admitted by the respondents in their statement of objections that it is only the Chapter-V of the research work has been copied from Dr.Thangamuthu’s work. Admissibility of plagiarism to the extent of 30% if permitted, the same requires to be examined by the Syndicate with reference to the Rules and the Regulations framed by the University to that effect. The sequence of events narrated above, establishes that no procedure prescribed under the Regulations is followed by the respondents while suspending the Guideship of the petitioner for 5 years.
19. Given the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed under the Regulations. Hence, the impugned order at Annexure-A and the decision of the Syndicate 21 Council Meeting dated 19.06.2015 at Annexure-S2 and 19.01.2016 at Annexure-W1 are quashed.
20. The matter is remanded to the respondents to reconsider the issue in accordance with the Regulations and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. NC Sd/- JUDGE