UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. JAGANNATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Public Service Commission (for short "upsc") is the appellant against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna high Court affirming the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The respondent, Shri Jagannath Mishra, was a candidate for Indian Engineering Service during the year 1995 and he had appeared in the written test. The examiner, while examining the answer papers in Civil Engineering Paper II (Conventional) , reported the fact that the person having Roll No. 006179 is suspected to have copied from the person having Roll No. 006178 and that Shri Mishra was having Roll No. 006178. In view of the aforesaid report of the examiner, UPSC got the papers examined by an Expert Committee, which Committee also reported that the candidate bearing Roll No. 006179 has copied from the candidate having roll No. 006178 and the latter has helped and connived in such copying. UPSC, therefore, issued show-cause notice to both the candidates, namely, one having Roll No. 006178 and the other having Roll No. 006179 indicating thereunder that the person having Roll No. 006179 has copied from the person having Roll No. 006178 and the latter person has connived and/or facilitated in the matter. The person having Roll No. 006179 filed a show-cause indicating that he never knew that copying is prohibited and also took the defence that he has not copied. Shri Mishra in his reply, however, submitted that he has not allowed anybody to copy from his answer papers in the said examination and the sitting arrangement might have been compact making it easy for the other candidate to catch sight of some answers and further since the invigilator was continuously moving around the examination hall and there had been no warning from him nor had there been any report from him, he has totally failed to understand as to how the other person has been able to copy from his answer paper. He also stated that in a competitive examination normally one would not allow the other to copy from him and in the case in hand the other person is neither a relation nor a friend. UPSC, on considering the show-cause furnished by the two candidates and also on examining the answer papers, came to the conclusion that both the candidates have infringed Rule II (G) of the Instructions to the candidates and it is apparent that the candidate having Roll No. 006179 has copied from Shri Mishra having Roll No. 006178 and that such copying could not have been possible, but for facilitation and connivance of the said Shri Mishra. UPSC then punished this candidate debarring him to appear in any competitive examination for a period of 10 years.

(2.) The respondent moved the Tribunal assailing the order of punishment inflicted upon by UPSC. The Tribunal set aside the said order of punishment basically on the ground that there has been no complaint from the invigilator concerned that such unfair means were adopted and that specially in the paper in which the alleged copying is said to have been made is such that it is not improbable that even the sequence of answers would be similar. The tribunal then relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Institute of Engineers (India) where this Court had exonerated the candidates in a somewhat similar situation, according to the Tribunal. The order of punishment having been set aside, UPSC went in a writ petition to the High Court. The High Court also was persuaded to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal basically relying upon the decision of this Court referred to earlier and also on the ground that the answer being mathematical and objective there was every likelihood of those answers tallying as the same answers had been answered by the other candidates and, according to the learned counsel also, as it is borne out from the report of the examiner the answers were more or less similar, it is difficult to jump to the conclusion that the respondent had allowed the candidate sitting behind him to copy from his answer paper. The High Court having dismissed the writ petition filed by UPSC, UPSC is before us in appeal, special leave having been granted.

(3.) Mr Parekh, appearing for UPSC vehemently urged that a bare look at the answer papers of the two candidates would be sufficient to come to a conclusion that one has copied from the other and such copying could be possible only because of the assistance and/or connivance of the person from whom the other can be said to have copied and therefore the Tribunal and the high Court committed error in interfering with the decision of UPSC. He also contended that in a matter like this when UPSC on examining the relevant materials, has come to a definite conclusion, the same should not be interfered with by the Court or Tribunal by appreciation of evidence unless it is established either there has been any violation of principles of natural justice or that UPSC has taken the decision mala fide and, since none of the two requirements are satisfied here, the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed error in interfering with the ultimate decision of UPSC. According to Mr Parekh, the judgment of this Court on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court had relied upon will have no application to the circumstances of the present case. Mr Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal and the High Court were fully justified in relying upon the aforesaid decision of this Court. He also contended that in the absence of any materials before UPSC to show as to in what way the respondent can be said to have connived with the other candidate who is said to have copied from him the ultimate conclusion would be a conclusion without any evidence and as such the Tribunal was fully justified in interfering with the said conclusion and the High Court also did not commit any error in not interfering with the said conclusion. Mr Mishra also submitted that the respondent was a brilliant student being an engineering graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology and it is not likely that he would have allowed the other candidate to copy from his answer paper though he is not in a position to indicate as to how such a situation could be possible.