HANUMANTH BALLAPPA ILAGER Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 18. 3. 2003 passed by the 1st respondent in No. Ku/exam/comm/mpc/ 2003-228 vide Annexure-E, has presented this writ Petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a B. Com student studying in 2nd respondent's College; he has taken admission for the I year B. Com in the academic year 200-01 for which examination was held in the month of April 2001; his Registration Number was 4839; When he was writing the examination for the 1 year B. Com, squad of the 1st respondent-University had registered a case against him for involving in malpractice; the squad has submitted its report to the concerned authorities and thereafter, 2nd respondent has sent a communication to the petitioner stating that he was involved in the malpactice. When thing stood thus, after completion of the I year examination, petitioner took admission to the II year B. Com in the same college and he has appeared for the II year examination conducted by the 1st respondent, and he has been declared as pass. After the announcement of the result of the II year, he took admission for HI year b. Com and when he is prosecuting the studies in the III year, he received the impugned order dated 18. 3. 2003 vide Annexure-E from the 1st respondent stating that the mal-practice committed by the petitioner during the I year examination is proved and university has taken a decision that to the effect that: "the performance of the candidate at B. Com Part-I exam held in april, 2001 be cancelled and to allow the candidate to appear for B. Com Part-I Examination, in april 2003. He is required to seek fresh admission to B. Com Part-II only in June 2003. Further the candidate is not eligible for B. Com Part-II and III. His performance (if any) in B. Com II may be cancelled. He shall also not to be permitted to appear for the B. Com III examination to be held in April 2003". The said order has been passed by the 1st respondent unilaterally, without conducting any enquiry or affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18. 3. 2003 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has presented this Writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has not received any notice either from the Enquiry committee or the college authorities that squad has registered a case against him and matter has been referred to the inquiry Committee. The petitioner is not aware of the proceedings pending adjudication before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order imposing penalty unilaterally, behind the back of the petitioner. The said order passed by the 1st respondent is contrary to the existing Regulations and mandatory provisions of the Karnataka State universities Act, 2000. To substantiate his case, he placed reliance on Sub-section 2 of Section 77 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, and the law laid down by this Court in the case of DURGAPPA. B v. PRINCIPAL BASAVESHWARA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, bagalkot AND ANR. 1982 (1) Kar L. J. 120 and submitted that, in view of the law laid down by this Court as stated supra and the Apex Court to the effect that "the punishment to the statement should not be punitative in nature which affects the career of the student", and also for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E is liable to be set aside.