RAJNISH KUMAR RAI Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner, though an IPS Officer, in capacity as a student of LL.B., appeared for the examinations of the Second Semester of 1st LL.B. On 25.04.2008, there was paper of Banking and Negotiable Instruments Act. The timings were from 10.30 a.m., to 1.30 p.m. As per the petitioner, one lady observer had accosted another girl student in the class -room and started addressing to such girl student in loud voice. At that stage, the petitioner requested the lady Supervisor to speak softly as he was being disturbed. The said lady Observer came to the desk of the petitioner after few minutes and started examining the petitioner's belongings. She opened pencil box and took out 6 inch long foot -ruler (scale) from the said box. As per the petitioner, the said foot -ruler belonged to his six -and -a -half year old son and the petitioner, with a view to make use of the foot -ruler at the time of preparing tables in the examination, had carried the same. The lady Supervisor as per the petitioner raised the objection that something was inscribed on the foot -ruler, which the petitioner stated, might have been written by his 6 1/2 old son. In spite of his explanation, the petitioner was prohibited for half -a -hour to write the answer -book. It appears that there was no reporting of such incident before the University, but as the aforesaid incident was reported in press, the University called upon the Supervisor and the other officer to submit the report. Based thereon, on 26.04.2008 the Sr. Supervisor of the University, Shri R.Y. Mankad gave a report to the Director of Examinations, copy whereof is produced on page 163 and in the said report he has narrated the incident happened during the supervision on 25.04.2008 in the Examination Centre of Siddharth Law College at Gandhinagar. The other aspects may not be relevant, but in the said report he has referred to the information provided to him by Prajapati and the observer, which has been reproduced in quotes, English meaning thereof can be extracted as under: -

(2.) IN the earlier portion of the report, there is reference that one Mr. Prajapati informed him (Shri Mankad) that the observer is calling him and observer informed him that one student had brought literature of the examination in the examination hall and it was found during the checking and the said writing was over small plastic foot -ruler and 5 to 6 points were there of the examination paper of the same day. It further appears that the observer also gave statement, in which she first referred to the checking of the compass box and thereafter referred to the talk by her with the petitioner about getting disturbance and the discharge of the duty. She also stated that as and when the University calls her for further inquiry she shall remain present. The pertinent aspect is that in the said statement of Rajeshree H. Mengar, random checking and the talk for disturbance is referred to during the period of 3 O'clock to 6 O'clock in the evening and the random checking, which she had referred to is of 4.30 p.m., whereas for the inspection in the first session, the time shown is at 11.30 a.m., of the random checking. It also appears that the report was submitted on 26.04.2008 by Incharge Principle, Ms. Meenakshi Darekhan, in which it has been stated that the student was one of the two girls and there was doubt that something was written and, therefore, the paper was taken away by him and it was instructed to give him after half -an -hour. The foot -ruler was of a small size of 6 inch and a thin chit, which can be removed was affixed on the same, over which it was appearing that some points were written, which was seen by her and observer. Thereafter on the spot the same was torn off and the foot -ruler was broken and was thrown away in the dustbin. She has referred to the seat numbers of three students, which included the seat number of the petitioner. It also appears that the statement of Mr. D.D. Prajapati, who was Jr. Supervisor was also recorded in which there was reference to the foot -ruler with writing found from one student, who was permitted to write the answer paper after half -an -hour.

(3.) IT appears that thereafter the University based on the aforesaid report and the statement proceeded to initiate action against the petitioner by issuing notice and the petitioner had appeared in response thereto and had asked for certain documents, which as per the petitioner, were not supplied and the petitioner apprehended that the inquiry may be hushed up. At that stage, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 7292 of 2008. This Court in the said proceedings passed the following order: -