KAMMALAPATI BRAHMARAO Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. Brahmarao the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14533 of 1994 and P. Basavaiah Naidu the petitioner in Writ Petition N0.14851 of 1994 were debarred from taking the examination in Engineering for four years, i.e. for the next eight available examinations, besides forfeiting the performance in the examination in which they are said to have been involved in the commission of malpractice by the respondent-Gulbarga University by the impugned order dated 23-3-1994. The petitioners question the order as made in violation of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary.

(2.) K. Brahmarao is a student of final year B.E. Course studying in K.B.N. College of Engineering, Gulbarga. P. Basavaiah Naidu is also a student in the same college studying engineering. K. Brahmarao appeared for Electrical Technology Examination of second year as well as for the final year examination in which he failed in the month of January, 1994 with Registration No.89B 0565. P. Basavaiah Naidu appeared for Instrumentation Technology (II) of third year course (theory) on 4-2-1994 and for the backlog in engineering drawing for the first year with Registration No.89B 673. Both the petitioners were issued with show cause notices by the second respondent dated 28-2-1994 and 25-2-1994 respectively. The charge against K. Brahmarao was that he was impersonator to B. E. IIIrd year candidate with Registration No. 89B 673. The charge against P. Basavaiah Naidu was impersonation at the examination. The petitioners appeared before the Malpractices Committee of the respondent and denied the charges. The Malpractices Committee found them guilty of the charges and proposed the punishment of debarring the petitioners from taking the examinations for four years besides forfeiting their performance in the examination. The Vice-Chancellor reported the matter to the Syndicate along with his recommendation to accept the punishment proposed by the Committee. The Syndicate agreed with the Vice-Chancellor and imposed the punishment recommended by the Committee.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the charges framed against the petitioners were vague and that they had no opportunity to meet the allegations made against them. He further contended that the copies of the relevant documents were not furnished to the petitioners that the persons connected with the alleged malpractice, namely the junior and senior Supervisors at the examination were not examined and the petitioners had no opportunity to cross-examine them. He further submits that the impugned orders are vitiated as they are not speaking orders and no reasons for imposing the punishment were mentioned and that the so-called enquiry proceeded in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.