AMJAD KHAN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) IV Year Course (Architecture and Town Planning) in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, a university constituted under the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, has filed this petition against the University seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 1 July 1994 issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the examination of the final year B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) scheduled for 10 July 1994. The respondents are the University through its Vice Chancellor, the Proctor and the Controller of Examination. In the impugned show cause notice dated 1 July 1994, which had been issued by the Officiating Proctor under the directions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, it is alleged that Mr. Mohammad Haroon, Chowkidar of the University, reported that the petitioner along with his friends physically assaulted him on 30 June 1994 while he was performing his duty in the Faculty of Education which resulted in serious head injuries to him and that it was an attack on a university employee while he was on duty. The petitioner was told that it was a serious breach of discipline and he was required to explain his action for consideration of the disciplinary committee. He was asked to submit his reply latest by 4.00 P.M. the following day failing which it was to be presumed that he had nothing to say in his defence. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice that, in the meanwhile, the Vice Chancellor had directed that the petitioner might not be allowed to apear in the examination paper to be held on 4 July 1994. Petitioner says this paper was rescheduled for 10 July 1994. Petitioner says he received this show cause notice only on 4 July 1994 at 6.00 P.M. and he complains that on the one hand he was called upon to show cause against his alleged action and at the same time the Vice Chancellor, without affording any opportunity to him either to submit any reply or to give him any hearing, had imposed the punishment whereby the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the last examination of the final year of the B.Sc. Engineering (Civil). He said that the Disciplinary Committee of the University had yet to determine and come to any conclusion with regard to the alleged act complained of against the petitioner. He questioned the right of the University to debar him from appearing in the examination.

(2.) This matter was listed before this Bench on 8 July 1994. It was filed on the same day and on mentioning by the counsel for the petitioner before the Chief Justice on 8 July 1994 it was ordered to be listed on that very day. When the matter came up before us at 2.00 P.M. we were not quite satisfied with the allegations made in the petition. There was no averment if any reply was sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice. We directed that petitioner should appear in court before we passed any order. We fixed the hearing again at 4.00 P.M. The petitioner appeared and we recorded his statement. He admitted having sent his reply to the show cause notice on 6 July 1994 which was received by the University at 1.40 P.M. on that day. He filed a photo copy of his reply which we marked as Exhibit 'P-3'. The petitioner said that thereafter he did not receive any communication nor he was called before the meeting of any Disciplinary Committee to present his case. He said he was to appear in one written paper only which was to be held on 10 July 1994 and that thereafter only viva voce examination would remain. Acting on the statement of the petitioner we issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued returnable on 15 July 1994 and at the same time directed that the petitioner be allowed to take his examination to be held on 10 July 1994. We also recorded the undertaking of the petitioner that he would not create any nuisance or otherwise and shall abide by the rules and regulations of the University.

(3.) The respondents have since submitted their reply to the show cause notice on the affidavit of Professor Bashiruddin Ahmed, Vice Chancellor of the University. He has made serious allegations about the conduct of the petitioner in the University and has accused him of gross indiscipline in the campus. The Vice Chancellor also brought on record communication dated 8 July 1994 sent to the petitioner. It was received by the petitioner on the same day at 12.25 P.M. as per the endorsement made by him while acknowledging the same. In this communication detailed facts were mentioned as to how the action was taken against the petitioner after considering his reply to the show cause notice dated I July 1994. The petitioiner, when he appeared before us on 8 July 1994 at 4.00 P.M., concealed this communication from us and made a statement on oath-that he did not receive any communication by the time he had made the statement. That fact itself would show the conduct of the petitioner that he had no regard for truth and can even lie before a Division Bench of the High Court. We took serious note of this conduct of the petitioiner and issued a show cause notice to him as to why a complaint for an offence under section 193 Indian Penal Code, which appeared to have been committed by him, be .not filed against him in the court of competent jurisdiction. He has since filed his reply to that notice to which we will presently refer.