The court emphasized the importance of considering the provisions of the Programme Manual 2021-2022 and adopting a consistent and non-discriminatory approach in cases of academic misconduct.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the appellants informs that required court fee has been paid. The other office objections are overruled.

2. Heard Mr.Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants.

3. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 19045/2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents-students has been allowed and the order under challenge has been set aside. The writ Court has remitted the matter back to the appellant-Indian Institute of Management with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment in terms of clause 4.2. l(c) of the Programme Manual 2021-2022 [PGP & PGP BA] and pass appropriate order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in relying on certain provisions of the Programme Manual 2021-2022 to come to the conclusion that a lenient view is required to be taken for the first-time offenders and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the respondents were the students enrolled in PGP & PGP BA course and they were required to appear in online mid-term examination held on 05.08.2021. These respondents-students knowing fully well that they cannot use the internet in the examination had formed a 'WhatsApp' group in order to involve themselves in assisting each other in answering the questions and as such, had adopted unfair means to give their examination.

5. It is submitted that under the manual dealing with the provisions relating to academic penalty for copying in examinations and quizzes clearly provides that the penalty could be more severe, including possible expulsion. The submission is that it is in the discretion of the Department to take a lenient view or to impose severe penalty such as expulsion in case the students have been found to be involved in copying in the examination and quizzes.

6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and has only relied on the provisions as provided under para 4.2.1(c)(l) and has come to the conclusion that for the first-time offenders, zero marks shall be awarded in the examination/test, irrespective of however minor the infringement may be.

7. It is also submitted that it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that in the matters relating to education and academic standards, the Court shall not impose its view and shall not reduce the quantum of punishment awarded to the offenders.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the records.

9. The respondents-students were admittedly students of Post Graduate Courses for the year 2021-2023. The first-term examination (mid-term examination) was scheduled to be held on 05.08.2021. It is alleged that in the said examination, these respondents-students had adopted unfair means by forming a group on 'WhatsApp' and thereby involved themselves in the use of unfair means in giving their examination. It is the case of the appellants that these respondents-students when issued show cause notice etc., had tried to remove the evidence from the social media group. They were in fact involved in planning and cheating during the mid-term examination. These respondents-students had initially denied the allegations, however, some of them when confronted had subsequently accepted their guilt.

10. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the PGP Committee, without holding an enquiry on the complaint, only on the basis of the screenshots came to the conclusion that ten students including the respondents-students are involved in the use of unfair means in all three subjects and awarded maximum punishment of expulsion from the institute and they were directed to withdraw from the programme vide order dated 25.08.2021. The respondents-students feeling aggrieved had preferred an appeal. However, t