Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Alok Ranjan, S/o. Sri Giridhary Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The National Institute of Technology Patna through its Director & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 119 of 2020
Decided On : 07-02-2022
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial review of administrative order – To judge validity of an administrative order, normally Wednesbury Test is to be applied, but only for limited purpose of testing whether decision is illegal or suffers from procedural improprieties or that sentence is such that no sensible decision-maker would, on materials available before him and within framework of law, have arrived at – High Court can only take into account whether all relevant materials were taken into account and that decision was bona fide. (Paras 34 and 35)
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – Removal from service by way of punishment – Merely because Enquiry Officer was also Member of Board of Governors of NIT, that by itself would not prove any bias, more so, when element of personal bias has not been shown – All formalities of a domestic enquiry was complied with, including approval of Board of Governors – Petitioner had purloined one answer-book while invigilating in forenoon session, which he used it in afternoon session when he himself was an examinee – Answer-book submitted by petitioner in afternoon session was pre-written on answer-book with a different code which answer-book had been circulated in forenoon session of examination and not in afternoon session – Order of removal in a misdemeanour of this kind does not shock conscience of Court nor can it ever be called perverse, more so when petitioner himself was a Faculty Member and misused his capacity as an invigilator in taking away an unused answer-book for submitting it as his own answer-book in Ph.D. examination--Order impugned affirmed – Petition dismissed. (Paras 7, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 38 and 39)
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Shekhar Singh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 05.10.2019 issued by the Director of National Institute of Technology, Patna, removing him from services of the National Institute of Technology, Patna (in short the NIT) where he had been serving as Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department as also for quashing the memorandum of charges dated 21.09.2015 and all the consequent proceedings pursuant thereto.
3. While in job in the NIT, the petitioner had enrolled himself for Ph.D. in the Electrical Engineering Department at the NIT. He had appeared in the Mid-Semester Examination for such Ph.D. course in the month of March, 2014. The invigilator of the aforesaid exam pointed out a discrepancy in his answer book as on the answer book submitted by the petitioner, a different code was mentioned, which answer-book was not supplied to the candidates in the examination hall. A notice was thereafter given to the petitioner for having used unfair means during the examination.
4. To such notice, the petitioner replied on 29.04.2014 by stating that he could not have verified the answer-book code supplied to him in the examination hall to see whether it tallied with the code number given on other answer-book and, therefore, the charge of using unfair means in the exam was absolutely uncalled for.
5. The Unfair Means Committee found that the petitioner was an invigilator in another room in the forenoon session of 13.03.2014 and in the second half, he was himself a candidate. The proceedings of the Committee further reflects that in the forenoon session, 48 copies with different code number were issued to the candidates but only 47 candidates had appeared and those 47 answer-books were returned at the end of session. One unused answer-book was never returned. The code number on such answer-book was different from the code number in the answer-book provided in the afternoon session of the examination in which the petitioner was a candidate himself. Thus, it was found out that the petitioner had pilfered the unused answer book in the forenoon session of the examination, in which he was an invigilator, filled it up with the answers and, thereafter, submitted it in the afternoon session where he was a candidate. Such conduct was held to be unfair by the petitioner, who was also a Faculty Member.
6. A show-cause notice dated 20.03.2015 was issued to the petitioner as to why a disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him for his misconduct. To the aforesaid notice, the petitioner appears to have replied on 31.03.2015, claiming innocence and that he had no idea as to how he was supplied with an answer-book with a different code.
7. Since the petitioner was found using unfair means in the examination, his admission in the Ph.D. course was cancelled and he was debarred forever from applying for such course in the NIT.
8. The petitioner also took a plea in his show-cause reply with respect to departmental proceeding that he was already under lot of mental stress and constraints for his admission in the Ph.D. course having been cancelled and he being debarred forever from taking admission in future and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting him to further departmental proceeding for imposing punishment.
9. The explanation of the petitioner did not find favour with the authorities and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him with two charges, namely, (i) that he took away one blank-answer book of the Mid-Semester Examination, 2014 while he was on duty as an invigilator; and (ii) that he used the same answer-book for answering his own paper in Ph.D. course in the afternoon session of the examination for the subject “Power System Protection” on 13.03.2014. He was further charged that he had brought this answer-book with pre-written answers and had submi
The court held that the decision of the respondent authorities to disqualify the petitioner under Regulation 5(a) without finding mala-fide possession of material was non-speaking and cryptic, and fa....
An administrative order is only effective when communicated to the affected party, and failure to provide a fair hearing or necessary materials constitutes a violation of natural justice.
The court upheld the dismissal of a public servant for misconduct, emphasizing integrity and impartiality in public service and clarifying standards for judicial review of disciplinary actions.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
