Back
Allahbad High Court
OMPRAKASHTRIVEDI
Narendra Narain Misra - Appellant
Versus
The Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University - Respondent
Decided On : 08/13/1974
NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICATION IN UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - FAIRNESS OF ENQUIRY - REQUIREMENTS - VIOLATION - PERSONAL HEARING - NECESSITY - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - VAGUENESS - MALA FIDES - BURDEN OF PROOF - REVIEW OF ORDER - VICE-CHANCELLOR'S POWER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of M.L.K. Degree College, was charged with using unfair means in the B.A. Final Examination. The invigilators seized a manuscript from his possession and reported the incident to the authorities. The petitioner denied the charges and alleged that he was coerced into admitting the possession of the manuscript. The University authorities, after an enquiry, cancelled the petitioner's examination and debarred him from appearing in any University examination upto 1970.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in the enquiry conducted by the University authorities. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice informing him of the charges against him and an opportunity to submit his explanation. The University authorities were not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts of law or in criminal trials. The Court also held that there was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the University authorities or the invigilators. The Vice-Chancellor did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application for review of his order as the Statute did not confer any power of review in the Vice-Chancellor.
Issues: 1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the enquiry conducted by the University authorities? 2. Whether there was evidence of mala fides on the part of the University authorities or the invigilators? 3. Whether the Vice-Chancellor erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for review of his order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice require that a person accused of misconduct be given notice of the charges against him, an opportunity to state his case, and a fair and unbiased hearing. In the present case, the petitioner was given a show-cause notice informing him of the charges against him and an opportunity to submit his explanation. The University authorities were not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts of law or in criminal trials. They were free to adopt any procedure to satisfy themselves about the charge against the petitioner after ensuring that the enquiry was fair and unbiased. 2. The burden of proving mala fides lies on the person who alleges it. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of mala fides on the part of the University authorities or the invigilators. 3. The Vice-Chancellor did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application for review of his order as the Statute did not confer any power of review in the Vice-Chancellor.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs to the opposite parties.
ORDER :- This petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Narendra Narain Misra. The material facts are as follows. The petitioner was a student of M. L. K. Degree College, Balrampur, Gonda, in B. A. Final. The petitioner appeared in the B. A. final Examination held by the Gorakhpur University, through M. L. K. Degree College Centre of which the Principal was the Centre Superintendent. Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma who were invigilators in the room in which the petitioner had a seat in the said examination charged the petitioner with having used unfair means in answering the Psychology Paper. According to opposite parties' case as set out in the counter-affidavit a manuscript containing certain matter relating to the Psychology Paper was actually seized from the petitioner's possession by the said invigilators on the spot. The petitioner was asked to fill the form of reporting cases of use of unfair means at the examination (Annexure C to the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). The petitioner filled the relevant columns of this form then and there and admitted in writing that a piece of paper containing certain points was seized from his possession, but he denied having used the same in answering the question paper and explained that the paper happened to be with him inadvertently as before start of examination he was learning certain points from this paper. He contested also that this paper had any connection with the subject of Psychology. The two invigilators Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma drew up a report on the prescribed form (copy of which is Annexure D to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). In this report the invigilators stated that they had noticed the petitioner hiding a piece of paper in his handkerchief and when asked to show the paper he refused to do so and placed the paper with the handkerchief inside his shirt. He refused to show that pocket when asked to do so. Then the Superintendent was called for help and with difficulty and after lot of fuss being created the petitioner handed over the piece of paper taken out of his pocket in the presence of the Superintendent. After his pockets were searched by the Superintendent he was seen swallowing a piece of paper with the help of a glass of water. Then he threw the second copy which was issued to him and left the place, the Superintendent of the examination centre also recorded the same day his own report on the said prescribed form for reporting cases of use of unfair means at examinations and the same is contained in Annexure E filed with the counter-affidavit. The same day on 11-5-1968 the Centre Superintendent reported the incident by a letter to the Registrar Examinations, Gorakhpur University along with the matter contained in the Form E-4. In this report the Superintendent reported that in the morning session of the examination held on 11-5-1968 the petitioner while appearing in the Psychology Paper-I was found in possession of a manuscript written on one side. With this letter were enclosed the relevant documents including the manuscript slip said to have been seized from the petitioner and his notings on Form E-4, the report of the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent on this Form (Annexures C, D and E attached to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). Copy of the manuscript slip allegedly seized from the petitioner is Annexure G filed with the- same counter-affidavit. That very day (11-5-1968) the petitioner sent a complaint to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, under registered cover alleging that Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma nursed past ill will against him and through a well hatched design had tried to falsely implicate him for being in possession of a piece of paper and for having used unfair means. In this complaint the petitioner denied not only the fact that any such manuscript was recovered from his possession but a
AI
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
