SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Raj) 409

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Dilip Singh - Appellant
Versus
The University of Jodhpur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 321 of 1978.
Decided On : 21-12-1978

The right to be heard in a quasi-judicial proceeding includes the right to inspect the documents and cross-examine the witnesses.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY - Examination - Unfair means - Punishment - Principles of natural justice - Right to inspect documents and cross-examine witnesses - Regulation 73-H of the Jodhpur University Act - Interpretation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a student of Jodhpur University, was accused of using unfair means in an examination. The University Committee, after examining the reports of the Invigilator, Centre Superintendent, Head Examiner, and the material found in the petitioner's possession, found a prima facie case against him. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice and a personal hearing, but he was not allowed to inspect the documents or cross-examine the witnesses. The Syndicate of the University imposed the punishment of cancellation of the examination and debarring the petitioner from appearing in any examination for two years.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the University Committee and the Syndicate had violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner an opportunity to inspect the documents and cross-examine the witnesses. The court observed that the right to be heard includes the right to inspect the reports and other relevant documents, the right to cross-examine the persons on whose report or oral testimony reliance is being placed, and the right to adduce evidence to controvert the evidence relied upon by the University.

Issues: Whether the University Committee and the Syndicate had violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner an opportunity to inspect the documents and cross-examine the witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Ghonshnyamdas and Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad, which held that examinees have a right to be heard and to present their case adequately. The court also relied on the decision in Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan, which held that the right to be heard includes the right to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. - In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Dilipsingh, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Syndicate of the University of Jodhpur, Communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur by his letter dated 30th January, 1978, whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment oi cancellation of the examination in 1977 and debarring from appearing at any examination of the University to be held in the years 1978 and 1979.

2. The petitioner had joined the first year of the three year Degree Course of Bachelor of Science of the University of Jodhpur in July, 1976 and he appeared at the final year examination of the said three year degree course in the year 1977. The Registrar of the University of Jodhpur served upon the petitioner a memorandum dated 25th August, 1977, wherein it was stated that on 5th August, 1977, at about 8.15 AM, while answering the question paper of Botnay I of B.SC Final Examination of 1977, the petitioner was found in possession of 14 leaves of manuscript papers which the petitioner handed over after some resistance Through the said memorandum the petitioner was informed tint the possession of unauthorised material in examination hall is forbidden and the act of refusing to signatory the statement, is an act of indiscipline & that the petitioner had committed offence punishable under Ordinance No 94 & 95 of the Ordinances of the Jodhpur University. By the memo random aforesaid, the petitioner was required to show cause why appropriate action be not taken against him under the rules and to submit his explanation within seven days of the receipt of the notice. In response to the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 2nd September, 1977 wherein he stated that false charges had been levelled against him and that in incident had taken place in the examination hall on 5th August, 1977 as alleged in the memorandum. The petitioner, in his aforesaid reply, requested that he may be offered an opportunity to cross examine the Invigilator, who was present in the examination hall at that time so that he could establish the truth of his case. In the reply aforesaid, the petitioner also prayed for an opportunity to inspect the documents on the basis of which the charges mentioned in the memorandum had been levelled against him. On 29th September 1977, the Registrar of the University informed the petitioner that a Committee after examining and considering the report of Invigilator, the report of Centre Superintendent, the report of Head Examiner the material found in possession of the petitioner and the explanation tendered by him was convinced that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner that he was found using or attempting to use unfair means in the Examination Hall on 5th August, 1977 at 8:15 A.M. while answering the question paper on Botany-I of BSC Final Examination of 1977 and that the. Committee, therefore, proposed to recommend to the Syndicate the imposition of the punishment of cancellation of examination of 1977 and further debarring the petitioner from appearing at any examination of the University to be held in the years 1978 and 1979. By the letter aforesaid the petitioner was required to show cause, in writing, within a week of the receipt of the said letter why the punishment as proposed by the Committee, be not imposed on the petitioner The petitioner was also informed that in case he desired to be heard in person by the Committee he should state so clear in his reply to the Show Cause notice and appear before the Committee on 10th October, 1977 In reply to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 7th Oct. 1977 wherein the petitioner reiterated that he was innocent and invited reference to his earlier representation dated 2nd September, 1977. The petitioner also appeared personal before the Committee on 10th October, 1977 but no wit

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top