IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

ADHARSH R.S.

AGED 48 YEARS `THIRUVONAM', T.C.9/2343, EDAVAKODE, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017 BY ADVS.

S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY N.SANTHA V.VARGHESE PETER JOSE CHRISTO S.A.ANAND K.N.REMYA L.ANNAPOORNA VISHNU V.K.

ABHIRAMI K. UDAY RESPONDENTS:

1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2 VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034 HEADNOTE-WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2023

4 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

5 STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE ON STUDENTS' DISCIPLINE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

6 THE SYNDICATE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034 OTHER PRESENT:

SHRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2023

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Police Officer in the Police Department of the State. He is doing his 3 year Unitary LLB (evening) Degree course. He is implicated with a suspected malpractice in the sixth semester examination, April 2022. The detection was by the Malpractice Prevention Squad of the University.

2. The Enquiry Committee, as per Ext.P10, found the petitioner guilty. The Committee recommended debarring the petitioner for three chances from appearing for any University examinations. The Syndicate, in its meeting held on 29.07.2022, resolved to accept the report of the Committee and to impose the punishment as recommended by the Committee.

3. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court, in W.P.(C) No.29523/2022. This Court, as per Ext.P15 judgment dated 28.10.2022, disposed of the writ petition with directions for disposal de novo.

4. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Enquiry Committee proceeded afresh and prepared Ext.P19 report. The Enquiry Committee again held the petitioner guilty of malpractice. However, the recommendation for punishment was modified, limiting debarring from 3 years to 2 years. As per Ext.P20, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 08.12.2022, on consideration of the report, resolved to accept the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee regarding guilt and punishment. The decision was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P21 memo. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P19, 20 and 21.

5. Heard Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the University.

6. The learned counsel on both sides addressed this Court on the facts and evidence. While the petitioner challenged the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary committee as accepted by the Syndicate, the learned Standing Counsel for the University defended the same. Since I find that order of the Syndicate (Ext.P20) accepting the report and recommendations of the disciplinary authority is liable to be interfered with on issues of law, I do not propose to go into the merits of the allegation of malpractice.

7. It is not in dispute that the report of the Enquiry Committee was not made available to the petitioner prior to its consideration and acceptance by the Syndicate. Therefore, the petitioner did not get opportunity to demonstrate before the Syndicate that the findings entered into by the Enquiry Committee are not correct. He has, since obtained a copy of the report under the Right to Information Act. However, by that time the Syndicate had resolved to accept the report and recommended the punishment.

8. So also, it is no