SURESH KOSHY GEORGE Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave from the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court arises from the disciplinary action taken by the Kerala University against the appellant. He was a student in the 1st year Degree Course of the Five Year Integrated course of Engineering, in the Engineering College, Trichur during the academic year 1964-1965. The Vice Chancellor of the said University came to the conclusion that he was guilty of malpractice during the examination held in April 1965 and consequently debarred him from appearing in any examination till April 1966.

(2.) In the examination in question the appellant had to appear in two papers in Mathematics. In this case we are concerned with the mathematics I paper. The Additional Examiner who valued that paper awarded the appellant 14 per cent marks but the Chief Examiner gave him 64 per cent in that paper. The appellant had answered questions Nos. 1 (a), 5 (a), 9 (a) and 4 (a) in the main answer book and secured 0, 2 out of 6, 0 and 0 marks respectively from the Additional Examiner. Pages 6--11 of his main answer book were left blank. There were some additional answer books certain pages of which were also left blank. Two of the additional answer books were also unused and left blank. In the used additional answer book questions 1 (a) and 9 (a) which the appellant had already answered in the main answer book and for which he had secured 0 marks from the Additional Examiner were found re-answered and for these he secured 100 per cent marks from the Chief Examiner. The Chairman of the Board of Examinations, noticing this unusual feature reported the matter to the Board of Examiners in Mathematics. The Board suggested that the University should take up the matter. The University thereafter called for the answer books of the appellant and the same were handed over to the Dean of the Faculty of Science who is the Convener of the Standing Committee for Examinations of the University for scrutiny. That official suspected that the additional books must have been inserted after the Additional Examiner had valued the paper and therefore suggested to the University that a high powered committee should be constituted to go into the matter. Accordingly a committee consisting of the Chairman of the Board of Engineering Examinations who is the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Chairman of the Mathematics Section of the Engineering Examinations, the Dean of Faculty of Science who is the Convener of the Standing Committee on Examinations, and the Registrar of the University was constituted to go into the matter. That committee after inquiry in which the Additional Examiner, the Chief Examiner as well as the appellant were examined came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of malpractice which called for disciplinary action. Consequently the Vice Chancellor ordered a formal inquiry as required by rules. He appointed the second respondent, a retired Principal of the University College, Trivandrum as Inquiry Officer for conducting the inquiry. After inquiry the second respondent submitted a report holding the appellant guilty of malpractice during the examination in question. He opined that subsequent to the valuation of the paper by the Additional Examiner, the appellant had inserted additional answer books with the collusion of the Chief Examiner. On the basis of that report a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Vice Chancellor. The appellant submitted his explanation in response to that notice. Not being satisfied with that explanation the Vice Chancellor passed an order debarring the appellant from appearing for any examination till April, 1966. The same was subsequently approved by the Syndicate. The Order of the Vice Chancellor was impugned before the High Court in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the High Court who heard the matter at the first instance allowed the petition and set aside that order but his decision was reversed in appeal by a Division Bench of that High Court. The appellant appeals to this Court against that decision.

(3.) Before the High Court as well as in this court the impugned order was assailed on two grounds viz.- (1) the formal inquiry required under the rules should have been conducted by an officer designated by the Principal of the College in which the appellant appeared for his examination i. e., the Examination Centre and hence there was no proper inquiry and (2) the impugned order was invalid inasmuch as no copy of the report made by the second respondent was made available to the appellant before he was called upon to submit his explanation in response to the show cause notice issued to him by the Vice-Chancellor.