Karnatak University vice-chancellor H B Walikar has dared Governor Vajubhai Vala, also chancellor of all the universities in the state, and has filed a writ petition with the Dharwad bench of High Court questioning the chancellor’s order to probe against him.
The writ petition is expected to come up for hearing in on Monday or Tuesday. Walikar has questioned the chancellor’s order to appoint a one-man inquiry commission to probe the allegations of irregularities against the vice-chancellor.
Governor Vajubhai Vala, based on the allegations made by three members of the Save Karnatak University Action Committee, had appointed the one-man commission headed by retired high court judge B Padmaraj to probe the allegations. Accordingly Justice Padmaraj had visited the university, examined the documents and submitted his report to the governor.
The report had said there was prima facie truth in the allegations. Based on this, the governor had ordered the registrar (administration) of the varsity to get the charges investigated by Lok
Ayukta under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions.
Registrar (administration) Chandrama Kanagali had filed a complaint with Dharwad Lok Ayukta against V-C Walikar, registrar (evaluation) H T Pote, finance officer Rajashri, professors S T Bagalkoti, B M Ratnakar, C Rajashekhar, former legal coordinator S B Malagi, vice-chancellor’s personal secretary S L Bilagi and syndicate members Shankargouda Patil, N R Balikai and Lakshman K Beeragoudar. Lok Ayukta officials have registered the FIR against all the eleven persons.
All of them have been booked for abuse of position and criminal breach of trust. The Lokayukta DySP Umesh S Shivalli has even started the probe.
Walikar who had initially said he would welcome probe by any agency, subsequently filed the writ petition on Friday. He has contended that the governor as the chancellor had no powers to order probe against the vice-chancellor.
“Section 8(1) read with section 12 of the Karnataka State Universities Act 2000 under which the Chancellor has ordered the probe applies to the employees of the university. The Vice-Chancellor does not come under the ‘employee’ category. He comes under the Officers of the University category (Chapter III of the KSU Act). Section 14 (7) states that the chancellor has to act against the erring vice chancellor on the advice of the state government on consideration of the report of an inquiry ordered by it under sub-section (8).
It is the state government which should appoint the inquiry committee. In this case the state government has not been consulted. Moreover, the one-man inquiry commission did not give me an opportunity to make a representation in my defence” Walikar contended.
