ABE THOMAS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, has already completed the course of studies for the B. Sc. Engineering Degree of the Calicut University; he is yet to take 17 out of 52 examinations in respect of the course spread over eight semesters. He was served with memo, dated 20th November, 1980 signed by the Registrar of the University where in it is stated that at the second semester examination held in April, 1977 the petitioner had obtained 21, 24 and 33 marks respectively for Mathematics Paper II, Strength of Materials and Engineering Chemistry Paper II. He had applied for a duplicate copy of the marklist and on verification of the concerned register it was found that the same had been tampered with and the entry of marks altered. On investigation it was found that this was done by a member of the staff at the instance of the petitioner and the Vice Chancellor had ordered an enquiry by the Registrar into the matter. The petitioner was therefore directed to appear before the Registrar at 11 a.m. on 1st December, 1980. The petitioner appeared before the Registrar and denied the charge against him. The Registrar submitted a report to the 2nd respondent, the Controller of Examinations, and also to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Malappuram. The Deputy Superintendent of Police after investigation in the matter submitted a final report to the Court of the Special Judge, Trichur on 8th November, 1982 to drop further proceeding against the petitioner. Accepting the final report the Special Judge, Trichur passed orders on 29th November, 1982 dropping further action by way of prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged tampering of records of the University. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry on the question of the alleged malpractice committed by the petitioner. The enquiry officer gave a memo of charges containing also the statement of facts leading to the fraiming of charges and requiring the petitioner to file his written statement of defence within ten days of its receipt. A true copy of the memo of charges served on the petitioner is produced along with the original petition as Ext. P-2. There are two charges in Ext. P-2 namely that the petitioner induced Shri M. C. Raman, a low paid employee of the University to tamper with and alter the University records and that the offence was committed for the purpose of inflating the marks scored by the petitioner at the examination held by the University for the purpose of personal gain. Ext. P-2 further states that the petitioner had failed in the papers of which marks were altered but the altered marks would show that he had passed in those papers. He had applied for a duplicate copy of the marklist of the particular semester after having the entries in the tabulation register altered showing much higher marks than what he had scored at the examination. Ext. P-2 refers to nine documents with reference to which the charges were framed. The documents include a photostat copy of the concerned tabulation sheet of marks, a photostat copy of the original markbook, the reports of the Section Officer and the Assistant Registrar, the statement of Shri M. C. Raman, Peon of the Calicut University recorded on 21st October, 1980 and the explanation offered by M. C. Raman to the Registrar on 18th November, 1980. The petitioner was informed that if he desires to go through the records referred to in Ext. P-2, it was open to him to do so at the time and place mentioned therein. The petitioner is also directed to state whether he desires to be heared in person and in case he so desires, an oral enquiry will be conducted at which it is open to him to examine witnesses on his behalf. The petitioner is asked to furnish the list of witnesses he proposes to examine at the oral enquiry in case he desires to be heard in person. Ext. P-3, dated 7th May, 1983 is the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner. He has denied the charges framed against him. His principal reliance is on the final report of the Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) on the basis of which further proceedings before the Special Judge, Trichur had been dropped. In Ext. P-3 the petitioner did not ask for an oral enquiry, nor did he express his desire to be heard in person. The enquiry officer submitted his report and the controller of Examination of the University issued a memo, dated 5th August, 1983 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why the examinations taken by him since the incident on 17th October, 1980 should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from taking further examinations up to and inclusive of May, 1983. A true copy of the memo is produced along with the original petition as Ext. P-4. Ext. P-4 refers to the report of the enquiry officer and states that the Standing Committee on Examinations, after considering the report, has found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Vice Chancellor after having considered the enquiry report and in consultation with the Standing Committee of Examinations had provisionally decided to impose the punishment proposed in Ext. P-4. In this original petition the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondents culminating in Ext. P-4. No final orders imposing punishment on the petitioner has yet been passed in this case. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has raised a contention that the writ petition is premature and cannot be entertained at this stage.

(2.) The grounds on which relief is sought in this writ petition are that that the petitioner had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry held against him, he had also no opportunity to cross examine witnesses, if any examined, in the course of the enquiry, the materials relied on by the enquiry officer are not disclosed to the petitioner and he had not been given a copy of the enquiry report before he is asked to show cause why the punishment proposed should not be imposed on him.

(3.) There is no substance in the contention that the petitioner had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry or to cross examine witnesses, if any examined by the enquiry officer. The memo of charges Ext. P-2 itself requires the petitioner to state whether he desires to be heard in person, in which case alone there will be an oral enquiry. The petitioner did not express his desire to be heard in person, nor did he demand an oral enquiry. Apparently there was no oral enquiry in the matter and the enquiry officer submitted his report on the basis of the records available and referred to in Ext. P-2 itself. There is also no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the materials relied on by the enquiry officer were not disclosed to him. Ext. P-2 itself enumerates the materials on the basis of which the charges are framed, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to peruse the records relied upon by the enquiry officer. The only other ground of violation of natural justice pleaded by the petitioner is the non disclosure of the enquiry report before Ext. P-4 memo proposing the punishment is issued to him.