T C PETER Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises, if we may so term it, a vexed question, which had arisen several times before courts, including the Supreme Court The question is, when action is taken against a student-examinee, for alleged malpractice in the examination hall, what is the nature of the enquiry that is contemplated by the authority entitled to punish the student by either withholding his result of the examination for which he sat or by withholding his result of the examination as well as by debarring him from future examinations.

(2.) IN the case before us the appellant, an engineering graduate, sat for the engineering Service examination. On 4-8-1976, one of the days on which the examination was held, the invigilator in charge of the row in which the appellant sat, suspected that the appellant was using unauthorised manuscripts, hidden under the handkerchief held by him and so questioned the appellant. It is the case of the invigilator that before he could get at the manuscripts the appellant managed to transfer the manuscript into his mouth and went out of the hall, and, though he returned to the examination hall, he had by that time swallowed the papers. The appellant was asked about this incident and he denied what the invigilator stated as having taken place. Nevertheless the invigilator sent up and report about the incident as indicated above. There was a further report from another invigilator and also by a supervisor in the examination hall. The appellant was informed of the alleged malpractice by a show cause notice end he gave his reply totally denying the incident. The show cause notice and the reply, as well as the statements of the invigilators and the supervisor were sent to the Union Public Service Commission. In his reply to the show cause notice the appellant had stated that the points made by him "may be strictly considered at the time of enquiry, if any, before arriving at any decision. "

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader, who appeared, made available to us the file pertaining to the action taken against the appellant. From page 40 of the file, we find the decision of the Union Public Service Commission stated in these terms" agreed business for mentioned in Commission's meeting to be held on. . . . . . . . . . . . Engineering Services Examination, 1976. Shri T. C. Peter (Roll No. 1252)--Used unfair means and misbehaved in the examination hall. Candidate over 21 years of age. Decided to debar him for 10 years from Commission's examination and selections and to cancel his candidature for the current examination". Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that in matters of this nature the action to be taken must result from a quasi-judicial enquiry and that therefore the principles of natural justice should be followed. According to the appellant the authority had not acted in a quasi-judicial manner, not only because no opportunity was granted to the appellant, but also because the decision which we have extracted in full did not indicate that the authority had applied its mind to the questions involved before taking the drastic action of not only canceling his candidature for the examination for which the appellant sat but also of debarring the appellant for a long period of ten years, which would practically ruin his entire career in regard to seeking betterment of his lot by sitting for competitive examinations such as that applicable to Engineering Services examination.