PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been punished for using unfair means in the examination. It is alleged that petitioner while appearing in the examination of Shiksha Shastra, II Paper on 27 -7 -1990, his answer book came from outside the examination hall. He was given a show -cause notice on 6 -9 -1990. The petitioner is said to have replied the show -cause notice on 20 -11 -1990. He denied the allegation. The petitioner had received an order dated 1 -6 -1991 cancelling his B.A. 2nd year examination, 1990 and also debarring him from appearing in subsequent examination of 1991, by the Deputy Registrar (Examination). The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that it is passed without application of mind, mechanically and is based on no evidence. The order is said to arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. The order of punishment is also said to be against the principle of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was not shown the impugned answer book. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 1 -6 -1991. In reply, filed by the other side, it is averred that the petitioner had brought the answer book from outside the examination hall. This fact is endorsed on the petitioners' answer book by the Chief Invigilator of the examination centre. The petitioner was given opportunity to show cause. His explanation was considered and thereafter his examination was cancelled.

(2.) THE impugned order of punishment is issued on the basis of show cause notice issued to the petitioner and on the basis of his reply to the said show cause notice. No further enquiry was held after the petitioner's reply to the show -cause notice was received. The petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against him in the show -cause notice. If the allegation against the petitioner was proved, his answer book could not be sent for evaluation to the examiner. The answer book which was seized from the petitioner is said to have been brought in the examination hall from outside. Therefore, after its seizure, it was to be treated as the disputed answer book. Marks could not be awarded to the said disputed answer book. It was appropriate that an enquiry in presence of the petitioner should have been held as to whether the answer book was brought from outside the examination hall and if on enquiry it was proved that the answer book was procured by the petitioner from outside the examination hall then he was liable to be punished. After denying the charge the statement of the Chief Invigilator of the examination hall who had purportedly seized the answered book after it was brought to the examination hall, should have been recorded and the petitioner was entitled to cross -examine the Chief Invigilator. If the said invigilator was not available and could not depose during the enquiry then it was imperative for the unfairmeans committed to record such evidence as was available with them to prove the charge against the petitioner.

(3.) THE decision after conclusion of the enquiry is likely to affect the petitioner and his civil rights are likely to be impugned, therefore, he must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The unfairmeans committee which is clothed with the power to conduct enquiry in the matter of use of unfair means by the students during examination has a trappings of a quasi -judicial tribunal which is to decide unfair means cases on evidence. Such evidence is to be recorded in presence of the students in who are charged with having used unfair means in the examination or misconducted themselves during the examination. A student who is facing charge of use of unfair means during the examination or who is facing the charge of misconduct during the examination is entitled to be associated with the enquiry when evidence against him is recorded unless such student chooses to remain absent during the enquiry. He may put questions also to the witnesses which cannot be disallowed if in the opinion of the unfair means committee such questions are relevant to arrive at a just decision of the case.