Back
1998 Supreme(All) 913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg,j.
MOHIT NAMAN - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 4539 Of 1997
Decided On : 08/21/1998
A Committee constituted under an Ordinance to punish students for adopting unfair means in examinations must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which includes giving the student an opportunity to be heard and considering the student's explanation before passing an order of punishment.
Headnote:
UNFAIR MEANS - B. SC. PART II EXAMINATION - CANCELLATION OF RESULT - NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER NOT CONSIDERED - COMMITTEE ACTED IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ORDER OF PUNISHMENT PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE WAS VIRTUALLY EX PARTE - PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a regular student of B. Sc. Part II, appeared in Zoology IIIrd paper on 13th July 1996. There was no complaint or allegation against him by the invigilators or the Centre superintendent that he had indulged in adopting unfair means. However, the answer book of his Zoology IIIrd paper was sent for examination and evaluation to Dr. R. S. Pandey, Department of Zoology, University of Allahabad. Dr. Pandey informed the Controller of Examination that the signature of the invigilator on the answer book does not tally with that of the other answer books and appears to be forged and inducted from outside the examination hall. Also, the answers written in the answer book appear to be copied from some book. The matter was presented to the Committee appointed under clause 1.4 of the Ordinance on the use of Unfair Means and of Causing Disturbances in Examinations of the University of Allahabad, which came to the conclusion that the candidate (the petitioner) is guilty of the offence stated in clause 1.6a of the Ordinance and, therefore, the punishment of cancellation of the results of the petitioner of B. Sc. Part II examination of 1996 was imposed on 1.12.1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not caught red-handed in the examination hall adopting unfair means and the allegations of adopting unfair means against the petitioner were based on mere suspicion. The court also found that the Committee constituted under clause 1.4 of the Ordinance did not consider the explanation of the petitioner and a mechanical order on the printed form was passed without applying judicial mind to the facts of the case. The court held that the order of punishment passed by the Committee was virtually ex parte and the Committee acted in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was guilty of adopting unfair means in the B. Sc. Part II examination? 2. Whether the Committee constituted under clause 1.4 of the Ordinance considered the explanation of the petitioner? 3. Whether the order of punishment passed by the Committee was in violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of adopting unfair means in the B. Sc. Part II examination as there was no evidence to support the allegations against him. 2. The court held that the Committee constituted under clause 1.4 of the Ordinance did not consider the explanation of the petitioner as it was not available on the record of enquiry. 3. The court held that the order of punishment passed by the Committee was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard and his explanation was not considered.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-University to issue clean and clear mark-sheets of the petitioner and to formally declare his result of the examination of B. Sc. Part II and III. The petitioner was also entitled to all consequential benefits such as degree, etc.
( 1 ) MOHIT Naman was a regular student of B. Sc. Part II. He appeared in Zoology IIIrd paper on saturday 13th July. 1996 with Roll No. 53187 from C. M. P. Degree College. Allahabad in the aforesaid examination conducted by Allahabad University. There was absolutely no complaint or allegation against him either by the invigilators of the examination hall or that of the Centre superintendent that he had indulged in adopting unfair means. The answer book of his Zoology iiird paper, it appears, was sent for examination and evaluation to Dr. R. S. Pandey. Department of Zoology, University of Allahabad. Sri Pandey informed the Controller of Examination. University of Allahabad by addressing letter dated 3. 8. 1996, which runs as follows : this is to bring to your kind notice that while evaluating the answer book bearing Roll No. 53187 of B. Sc. Part II Zoology IIIrd paper, I observed that the signature of the invigilator on the answer book does not tally with that of the other answer books and appears to be forged and inducted from outside the examination hall. Also the answers written in the answer book appears to be copied from some book. The matter presented by the examinee in the answer book is not possible to be produced within 3 hrs. and it appears that the examinee has attempted the questions taking his own time. "in view of above observation, I request you to look into the matter and do the needful. " on the basis of the above report, a notice dated 30. 10. 1996 bearing No. 3910 was issued by the controller of Examination to the petitioner Mohit Naman who was required to furnish his explanation by 8. 11. 1996. According to the respondents, Mohit Naman did not furnish his explanation, and therefore, the Committee appointed under clause 1. 4 of the Ordinance on the use of Unfair Means and of Causing Disturbances in Examinations of the University of allahabad, after satisfying itself of the facts of the matter, came to the conclusion that the candidate (the petitioner) is guilty of offence stated in clause 1. 6a of the Ordinance and, therefore, the punishment of cancellation of the results of the petitioner of B. Sc. Part II examination of 1996 was imposed on 1. 12. 1996.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the result of B. Sc. Part II was published in the newspaper on 7. 10. 1996 and his roll number 53187 was shown under the head results Not Ready. The petitioner met the authorities but was told that the matter is being looked into and ultimately, a notice dated 30. 10. 1996 was served upon him, which was actually received by him on 13. 11. 1996 while the deadline for submitting the explanation, i. e. , upto 8. 11. 1996 had expired. The petitioner after having received the notice on 13. 11. 1996 moved an application before the examination Committee as well as Superintendent Dr. K. N. Pandey, seeking one weeks time to submit the explanation as he could not furnish explanation within time, i. e. , by 8. 11. 1996 as the notice was received by him on 13. 11. 1996 and also on account of the fact that the Deepawali vacations had intervened. A copy of the application dated 13. 11. 1996 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The explanation submitted by the petitioner on 18. 11. 1996 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which, it appears, was put up before the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor made an anxious enquiry by jotting down a note on the explanation, Annexure-5 to the writ petition itself, as to whether the petitioner was apprehended or not in the examination hall while adopting unfair means. He also directed the Controller of Examination to speak in the matter. It appears that no heed was paid to the order dated 19. 11. 1996 passed by the Vice- Chancellor on annexure-5 to the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE record of inquiry, which contains only three papers, a report by Dr. R. S. Pandey, dated 3. 8. 1996 ; a copy of the notice issued to the petitioner dated 3. 10. 1996 and the decision dated 1. 12. 1996 of the
