RAJESH CHANDULAL PUROHIT Vs. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July 1996 of the learned single Judge dismissing Special Civil Application No. 8945 of 1995 which was filed by the appellant-student challenging the order of penalty passed by the respondent-Saurashtra University in respect of the misconduct committed at the T.Y. B.Com. examination.

(2.) On 8th April 1995, the T.Y. B.Com. examination in the subject of Statistics was held. The appellant was one of the students who appeared at the said examination from Porbandar Centre. University Observer Mrs. N. K. Trivedi sent by the respondent-University submitted report dated 8th April 1995 pointing out that certain students at the above examination centre had collected their answer books from the Supervisor, but at the time of checking, the students themselves were not found to be present in the examination hall nor had they returned the answer books to the Supervisor. The Observer had, therefore, instructed the Supervisor to mark "absent" against the seat numbers of the concerned students and thereafter she had put her initials against such entries in the stationery report. She further stated that according to her information, the above students were writing their answer books outside the examination halls. The Observer had also mentioned in her report the seat numbers of 12 students who where absent and had not collected the answer books from the Supervisor; she had also mentioned the seat numbers of 37 students who had collected the answer books from the Supervior, but were not present in the examination halls of the above centre and who had not returned their answer books to the Supervisor. The appellant with seat No. 3457 was one of the said 37 students. The result of the said 37 students including the appellant was kept in abeyance when the results were declared in June 1995.

(3.) Ultimately, a show cause notice was issued to all the above 37 students including the appellant on 17th November 1995 alleging that at the examination held on 8-4-1995, the petitioner had collected the answer book from the Supervior, but during the checking carried out by the Observer, the appellant was found to be absent in the examination hall; the appellant had left the examination hall without handing over to the Supervisor the main answer book which was given to the appellant for writing answers. Subsequently, the answer book was handed over for assessment. Thus, the allegation was to the effect that the appellant had committed misconduct of writing the answer book outside the examination hall. The notice also referred to the provisions of Ordinances 160 A and 161AA of the University.