Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 89
High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra, C. J. And R. C. Patnaik, J.
DOLAGOBINDA PANIGRAHI - Appellant
Versus
ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY - Respondent
Original Jurisdiction Case 1955 Of 1980
Decided On : 09/26/1981
A.K.MISRA, B.K.PATNAIK, B.S.MISHRA, LINGARAJ RATH, S.C.Dash
The court held that the University authorities must strictly follow the prescribed procedure for dealing with cases of malpractice, and that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the offence.
Headnote:
MALPRACTICE - UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION - PUNISHMENT - CANCELLATION OF RESULTS - DEBARRING FROM REGISTERING - SCOPE AND EXTENT - ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (SEMESTER REGULATIONS) - REGULATION 37.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a student of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT), was accused of malpractice in the final B.V.Sc. examination. The Senior Invigilator, Dr. Maheswar Misra, reported the incident to the Dean, who initiated an inquiry. The Academic Council, acting on the recommendation of the inquiry committee, cancelled the petitioner's results and debarred him from registering for the next academic session.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report of malpractice was not made contemporaneously as required by Regulation 37 of the Semester Regulations, and that Dr. Misra had gone beyond his jurisdiction by reporting incidents from the past. The court also found that Dr. Misra should have brought the matter to the notice of the Dean, who was the prescribed functional authority to deal with cases of malpractice, instead of addressing his complaint directly to the Registrar.
Issues: 1. Whether the report of malpractice was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure? 2. Whether Dr. Misra acted within his jurisdiction in reporting incidents from the past? 3. Whether the Academic Council was justified in imposing the punishment of cancellation of results and debarring from registering?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 37 of the Semester Regulations requires that the report of malpractice be made on the same day of the occurrence. The court held that the delay in reporting the incident was a serious flaw, as it prevented the Dean from gathering evidence in support of the complaint. 2. The court held that Dr. Misra had gone beyond his jurisdiction by reporting incidents from the past, as this was not within the scope of his duties as an invigilator. 3. The court held that the Academic Council was not justified in imposing the punishment of cancellation of results and debarring from registering, as the complaint did not fall within the category of serious offences under Regulation 37(c)(iv).
Final Decision: The court quashed the punishment imposed on the petitioner and directed that his results be declared in accordance with law.
R. N. MISRA, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS application under Article of the Constitution calls in question the punishment imposed on the petitioner on the allegation of malpractice by the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (hereafter referred to as the 'o. U. A. T. ') under Annexure-12.
( 2 ) PETITIONER sat at the final B. V. Sc. the A. H. Examination, 8th Semester, held by the O. U. A. T. One of his papers, being 'fish Disease and Sanitation', was scheduled for the second sitting on 8-6-1979 from 3 P. M. to 5 P. M. One Dr. Maheswar Misra, Professor and Head of the Department of Animal Production was the Senior Invigilator. On 14th of June. 1979, Petitioner received notice from the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, to show cause against a complaint made by Dr. Misra and an extract of the report was enclosed to the notice. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 19-6-1979 denying the allegations and explaining the background in which Dr. Misra had made false allegations. Petitioner received an intimation communicating the order dated 18-11-1979, from the Registrar of O. U. A. T. , to the effect that petitioner's results of the Final Semester of 1978-79 stood cancelled and petitioner was deemed to have failed in all the courses of the 8th Semester and was debarred from registering till the corresponding Semester of the next academic session 1979-80. Petitioner filed a writ application before this Court in O. J. C. No. 1697 of 1979. During the pendency of the said application, the impugned order was withdrawn by notification dated 14-1- 1980. On 15-11980, the writ application was dismissed as having become infruc-tuous. The Academic Council set up a Board consisting of one of the Deans and two Professors for conducting an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and one Srinivas Das. Petitioner was served with a notice from the said Committee through its convener to show cause and petitioner in terms of Annexure-8 dated 5-3-1980, showed cause denying the allegations, pointing out the mala fides of Dr. Misra and also challenging the competency of the Committee to examine the matter. The matter was enquired into, Dr. Pani the then Dean and Dr. Misra were examined. On 11th of November, 1980, the following order was communicated to the petitioner:--
"results of the final, 8th semester examination, 1978-79 stand cancelled. He is deemed to have failed in all the courses of 8th semester and is debarred from registering till the corresponding semester of the next acadmic session 1980-81. "
This notification cancelling the petitioner's results and debarring him from registering again until end of academic session 1980-81 has been called in question in this writ application.
( 3 ) THE University and its Dean have filed a common counter affidavit while Dr. Misra who has been impleaded as opposite party No. 3 has filed a separate counter affidavit. It may be pointed out that Dr. Pani who was then Dean was no more there and has been replaced by Dr. J. N. Mohanty. In the counter-affidavits, the allegations against the petitioner have been highlighted and it has been pleaded that the petitioner had not only committed malpractice at the examination but had also grossly misbehaved with Dr. Misra who was the senior invigilator when he had obstructed the petitioner from committing malpractice,
( 4 ) WE are fully cognisant of the undisciplined conduct existing in educational institutions in this country. This is a phenomenon which is common more or less to every institution. Conducting fair examination in the traditional method hag become almost impossible. We are also cognisant of the fact that Court's jurisdiction is not appellate and if there be a fair determination at the dispute in the hands of the body consisting of Professors, the Court should not ordinarily disturb the action taken in the field of maintaining discipline and' order.
( 5 ) YET, on the facts of this case, we are of the view that the
