1996 Supreme(All) 102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. SINGH
KESHAV PRASAD YADAV - Appellant
Versus
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 32342 Of 1995
Decided On : 01/23/1996

The principles of natural justice are mandatory and must be complied with by the University in disciplinary proceedings against students.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY ORDINANCE - UNFAIR MEANS - CANCELLATION OF EXAMINATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR ENQUIRY - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - MATERIAL CONSTITUTING CHARGE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a regular student of D. A. V. Degree College, Varanasi, appeared in the B. Com. (Hon.) Part III examination in 1994-95. On 28-7-1995, he appeared in Elective A Paper III in the college center. It was reported to the university by the center superintendent that the petitioner ran away from the examination hall without depositing his answer book. However, the petitioner appeared in the following examinations on 3-8-95, 8-8-95, and 14-8-95 and also in the interview (viva-voce) which was held in the last on 16-8-95 as per the examination schedule. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 12-8-95 accusing him of misconduct with the allegation that he ran away with his answer book of Elective A III Paper on 28-7-85. The petitioner filed his reply denying the accusation and asserting that he deposited his answer book with the concerned invigilator within the examination time. The matter was taken up by the university as a case of use of unfair means in the examination. Accordingly, the unfair means committee recommended cancellation of the petitioner's 1994-95 examination and administration of severe warning. Accordingly, the controller; respondent no. 2 issued the order awarding the punishment to the petitioner on the lines as recommended in the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was vitiated due to non-application of mind or mechanical exercise of power by the University. The court further held that the University did not comply with the mandatory provisions of University Ordinances and the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity of hearing before the punishment was awarded to him.

Issues: 1. Whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner was vitiated due to non-application of mind or mechanical exercise of power by the University? 2. Whether the University complied with the mandatory provisions of University Ordinances and the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity of hearing before the punishment was awarded to him?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was vitiated due to non-application of mind or mechanical exercise of power by the University. The court observed that the University did not consider the petitioner's explanation and the material which impelled the committee appointed by it to accept the version given in the chargesheet and to reject the petitioner's version refuting that charge. 2. The court held that the University did not comply with the mandatory provisions of University Ordinances and the principles of natural justice. The court observed that the petitioner was not supplied with the reports of the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent on which the charge against him was based. The court further observed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity of hearing before the punishment was awarded to him. The court observed that the petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the committee which recommended the punishment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 12. 9. 95 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby petitioner's 1995 examination of B. Com. (Hon.) part III was canceled. The court also directed the respondent-university to declare the petitioner's result of B. Com. (Hon.) Part III on the basis of assessment of his marks which he may have secured in papers other than Elective a paper III in the main examination held between 19-7-95 and 16-8-1995 and in so far as the paper III of Elective a is concerned on the marks which may have been scored by the petitioner in the supplementary examination in which he appeared under this Court's order dated 21-11-1995.