BASAVARAJ D Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner D. Basavaraj, at the relevant time, was the student of V. V. Puram College of Law. He answered II! Year law degree examination held during October 1987. His registration number was 852435 for that examination. While answering the paper in labour laws, he is reported to have committed malpractice. He was however called upon to appear before the Malpractice Committee on 23-12-1987 through the Principal of his college. He appeared before them and pleaded that he was not guilty of the alleged malpractice. Despite that, without any further enquiry ; without submitting any documents for inspection or without submitting any witnesses for cross-examination, he was served with a communication from the Registrar (Evaluation) of the respondent-Bangalore University intimating him that he had been debarred from taking any examination till April 1990 in addition to cancelling the benefit of his performance at the examination held in October 1987 for the III Year Law Degree course. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that Annexure A, the endorsement dated 27th January 1988 is illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. He has asserted that it is in violation of the rules of natural justice and contrary to law.

(2.) On notice, the University has entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. It is very curious that the University has chosen to contest these matters and that too in a manner which is shocking to the concience of the court. In para-3 of the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the committee i.e.. Malpractice Enquiry Committee, on the hearing date made enquiries with the petitioner and perused the reports of the Chief Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Examinations and indicted the petitioner; the petitioner was notified of the hearing of the Committee through the Principal of the College, the petitioner, no doubt pleaded before the committee that he was not guilty of the offence alleged ; the allegation that the documents relied upon by the committee was not shown to the petitioner is not true ; that the allegation that on enquiry was held against the petitioner is devoid of merit that the petitioner has committed serious malpractices by taking away the answer script from the examination hall and writing the same outside ; and that the committee, after hearing the petitioner and perusing the records passed the order holding the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged. Other averments need not be referred to.

(3.) Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit is the report of the Superintendent of the Examination Hall. It is dated 21-11-1987. It is in Kannada. The true and free translation of the contents will read as follows :