B DURGAPPA Vs. PRINCIPAL BASAVESHWARA ENG COLLEGE BAGALKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondent is disposed of by the following order.

(2.) Facts leading to the petition may. briefly, be stated as follows: Petitioner is a student of Five year B. E. Course of the Karnataka University studying in the second semester at Basaveswara Engineering College, Bagalkot. While he was answering the second semester examination on 1.10.80 (Physics paper) due to the blowing of the wind his answer book was blown off the desk at which he was sitting at seat No. 755 in the examination hall. He has. therefore, asserted consequent to the heavy rains and blowing of the wind the papers which were blown off the desk got mixed up and his paper was mixed with that of seat No. 764. However, he was apprehended by the Junior invigilator and a statement was recorded from him. Thereafter, he received a show-cause notice by the Controller of Examinations of the Karnataka University-second respondent calling upon him to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for indulging in malpractice of copying in the examination in Physics paper on 1.10.80. He was also directed to appear before the Malpractice Cases Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committe') at 10.30 A. M., on 15.1.81. Petitioner accordingly appeared before the Committee and denied that he had copied on 1.10.80. Petitioner has alleged that apart from stating the charge nothing else was done by the Committee. He has further alleged that no invigilator was examined nor any other witness was examined by the Committee in his presence. He was not given any statement made by any person. He has also asserted that the concerned answer books were not put to the petitioner to prove the alleged factum of copying. Petitioner was then sent back stating that the inquiry was over. He has also asserted that even the student sitting at seat No. 764 was also not examined nor any other material was placed at the time of inquiry before the petitioner. However, the result of his second semester examination was withheld. After the third semester commenced he paid fees of third and fourth semesters and started attending classes. He also took examination of third semester which was scheduled to be held between March 28 and April 10. 1981., On 6th April, when the petitioner was writing his examination, he was informed by the Senior Superintendent that a message had been received from the University to the effect that the petitioner had been debarred and he was not permitted to write the examination on the said day and the remaining two other papers for the third semester. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have caused inquiries to be made at the office of the Controller of Examinations of the second respondent-University to furnish him the proceedings of the Committee and the order passed thereon by the Syndicate of the second respondent-University. That request was turned down by the Controller and petitioner was directed to make an application through the Principal of the college. The principal returned the" application made by the petitioner without forwarding the same to the Controller of Examinations of the second respondent- University. Petitioner has not been permitted to attend his classes of the IV semester and the order of the Syndicate and the proceedings of the Committee were never communicated to him. In the result, having no other remedv he has presented this writ petition, inter alia contending that the entire action of the respondents is contrary to law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. Respondents 1 and 2, the principal of the college and the University respectively, have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. It is unnecessary to notice the contentions advanced by the Principal of the College as he hap nothing to do with the action taken by the University against the petitioner . The second respondent in its statement of objections while not disputing some of the assertions made by the petitioner has in turn asserted that the petitioner was caught red handed by the junior invigilator as he was found in possession of the answer book of the student seated at seat No. 764 from which he was copying and thereafterwards on the arrival of the Senior Supervisor the matter was brought to his notice; that a statement was recorded by the petitioner and the matter reported to the concerned authority of the University. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner appeared before the Committee as directed. The Committee explained the charge to him and the petitioner denied the same. The Committee proceeded to record its findings. The proceedings of the Committee are annexed to the statement of objections at Annexure-R-4. It is, therefore, corntended for the respondent that the petitioner had adequate opportuney to defend the charge against him and it cannot, be said that there was any violation of the rules of natural justice.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent brought to my notice certain observations I have made in Writ Petition No. 5373 of 1979 (Mir Amzeed Hussain v. Bangalore University (1) . The observations are as follows: