ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared for the examination in Chemistry of the I Year Bachelor of Engineering Course of the I Semester on the 2nd of August, 1976. During the course of the examination, on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of some incriminating written material, He was prevented from writing the said paper. Thereafter, he was served with a notice Ext.'A' dt. 10/11th Sep, 1976 issued by the Deputy Registrar and Convenor Adhoc Committee. The petitioner was required to offer his explanation within five days in regard to the allegations contained in the said notice and to appear before the Committee constituted for enquiring into the matter at 3 P.M. on 18th Sep, 1976 at the City Office, Mathematical Block, Central College, Bangalore. The notice is in the cyclostyled form and the specific allegation made against the petitioner reads as follows : "Possession of incriminating written matter in the examination hall." The petitioner's case is that as he received the said notice as late as on 17th Sep, 1976, he could not offer a written explanation. He, however, appeared before the Committee and participated in the enquiry on the 18th of Sep, 1976. He examined himself in support of his case and pleaded that he is innocent. It appears that several other cases were also heard by the Committte, which recommended certain punishments being imposed. The Vice-Chancellor exercising the powers of the Syndicate under Sec.71 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, passed an order imposing the following punishment on the petitioners :

(2.) One of the complaints of the petitioner is that there has not been a reasonable uniformity in the matter of imposing punishment on different candidates who were found guilty of various mal-practices committed by them. But, it is unnecessary for me to go into that question as this writ petition is entitled to succeed on the short ground to be noticed hereafter.

(3.) It was contended by Shri V.A.Mohan Rangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order imposing punishment on the petitioner is liable to be quashed as the mandatory requirements of the proviso to sub-sec(2) of S.62 of the Act have not been complied with. Sub-sec(1) of S.62 provides that the final authority responsible for maintenance of discipline among the students of the University shall be the Vice-Chancellor and his directions in that behalf shall be carried out by the heads of colleges, hostels and other institutions. Sub- sec(2) which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows :