KUMARI KAJAL GARG Vs. BHARTI COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court was a student of B.Com.(Hons.) of respondent no.1 Bharti College. Vide communication dated 14.9.2012, the petitioner was required to present herself before the Inquiry Committee with regard to electoral malpractices reported by Smt. Shobhna Sinha. However, the copy of the report made by Smt. Shobhna Sinha was not annexed to the said communication. Vide response dated 18.9.2012, the petitioner requested the Principal of the college to provide inquiry documents to her before the meeting of the Inquiry Committee was held.

(2.) Vide impugned order dated 2.1.2013, the petitioner was informed that based on the investigation conducted by the Election Committee of the College and on the recommendation of the Governing Body had decided that she was found culpable in case of Student Union Election Malpractices Committee on 11.9.2012 and therefore she should be fined Rs.1,000.00 and debarred from attending College for one month. This communication also gave no indication as to in what manner the petitioner had misused her OMV card or what precisely was the malpractices alleged to have been committed by her on 11.9.2012. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) In my view, the respondent-College was duty bound to provide to the petitioner a copy of the report lodged by Smt. Shobhna Sinha, which was referred to in the letter dated 14.9.2012. On account of failure of the college to supply a copy of the said report to the petitioner she could not have known what precisely was the report made by Smt. Shobhna Sinha. Consequently, she was not in a position to present her case, with respect to the report of Smt. Shobhna Sinha before the Inquiry Committee. As noted earlier, the College has repeatedly alleged in the communications sent to the petitioner that she was involved in misuse of her OMV card. However, no attempt was made by the College to inform the petitioner as to in what manner the OMV card was misused by her. Unless the petitioner knew how she was alleged to have misused the OMV card, she was not in a position to place her case with respect to alleged misuse of OMV card before the Inquiry Committee.