MOHAMMAD ZAFAR SHARIEF Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a student in B Pharma Degree Course in the year 1981. In July 1981 he took the I Year Examination, but his results were withheld. On enquiry he was told, it was alleged that if he tendered an apology in his own hand writing about the incident said to have occurred out-side the Examination Hall during July 1981 Examination, he would be forgiven and his results announced. The petitioner claims that he complied with the same. A true copy of the letter of apology is to be found at Annexure-A1 to the petition. It does not bear any date.

(2.) Thereafter, by a letter dated 7-11-1981 he received intimation from the Controller of Examinations of the 2nd respondent University namely, the Karnatak University Dharwar, charging him with malpractice of having manhandled the College peon by name Shri K. Ramamurthy i e., by giving blows on his face when the B. Pharma Examination was in progress and the same had been reported by the Senior Supervisors. He was requested to appear before the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) and adduce any evidence, if any, and other suitable explanation for his conduct as alleged above. That letter was replied to by the petitioner stating that he had given his explanation and apology on 3-11-1981 itself through the Principal of the College at Raichur and the same may be accepted by the Committee and he be permitted to continue his studies. On 3-12-1981 he was informed that the University after careful consideration of his case and on the recommendations of the Committee was fully convinced that he actually resorted to malpractice at the above said Examination and as such it was decided to give him the punishment of his performance being cancelled at the Examination he had taken in July 1981 and further debarred from appearing for 5 consecutive Examinations. These correspondences are to be found at Annexures-B, C and D respectively.

(3.) Aggrieved by Annexure-D the last of the correspondences mentioned above, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the same inter alia contending that his explanation and apology were obtained under false promises and instead of exonerating after the apology was tendered in relation to the alleged misconduct, he had been punished contrary to the law and without jurisdiction.