PRADEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. S. Misra, J. The petitioner was a student of B. Sc. Part I of Canning College, Lucknow University, Lucknow. He appeared at the Physics Practical B. Sc. Part 1 Examination conducted by the Lucknow University on 26-5- 1982. Sri S. G. Wadhwani, opposite party No. 3, who was one of the Examiners apprehended the petitioner and after completing the formalities reported the matter to the Sub-Committee concerned. The formalities were: (i) completion of form for reporting cases of use or attempt to use unfair means at the examination (the statement of the candidate was obtained immediately in his own handwriting and signed by him), and (ii) serving of show cause notice on the candidate. It was said that the petitioner had a hand-written slip of paper pertaining to experiment which he was performing and the hand-written slip was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. A copy of the show cause notice served on the petitioner is Annexure No. 2 to the petition. The petitioner was charged on two counts. He gave his reply to the notice (vide Annexure No. 3 to the petition ). The Registrar of the University informed the petitioner (vide Annexure No. 4 to the petition) that the Examination Committee of the University had cancelled the entire examination of the petitioner of the year 1982. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the said order (Annexure No. 4) and for a mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to declare the result of the petitioner for the examination of the year 1981-82. The petition has been opposed. Sri S. G. Wadhwani has filed his counter-affidavit.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Umesh Chandra the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(3.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Having gone through the report of the invigilator checking squad and the reply to the show cause notice the findings of the Committee are as follows:- DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEe 1. x x x 2. x x x x x 3. Entire examination of the year 1982 cancelled. 4. x x x x x Signature of the members 1. sd/- 2. sd/- 3. sd/- 4. sd/- 5. Dated 19/7/82 4. It is thus quite plain that the Sub-Committee though intended to record its findings but failed to do so as is evident from the findings extracted hereinabove. The said Sub-Committee in the fact merely recorded the punishment to be awarded to the petitioner. It did not say as to whether the charge No. 1 was established or charge No. 2 was established or both the charges were established. It also did not say as to whether it was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner against the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, submitted that the entire findings of the aforesaid Sub-Committee should be considered as a whole and no part of it should be considered in isolation and if the entire findings are taken into consideration it would be evident that the said Sub- Committee was satisfied that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. We do not find any merit in this contention. Taking the entire findings as a whole into consideration it would be seen that the said Sub-Committee though desired to record its findings but failed to do so. It simply recorded its decision to the effect that the "entire examination of the year 1982 cancelled. " Such a decision of the Sub-Committee based on no findings would hence not be sustainable. 5. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties, however, referred us to a decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Prakash Kaluniva v. Punjab University, (AIR 1972 SC 1408 ). Referring to the observations made in paragraph 12 of the said decision it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in dealing with such cases the problem faced by the Universities should be appreciated by this Court and the matter should not be examined with the same strictness as applicable to criminal charges in the ordinary courts of law. In Prem Prakash's case the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad, (AIR 1966 SC 875) observed that the identity of the wrong answers given by the respondent in that case with that of the other candidate bearing the consecutive Roll Number rendered the Charge of the respondent having employed unfair means highly probable and that the findings of the enquiry committee based upon such probabilities and circumstantial evidence could not be said to be based on no evidence as in such matters direct evidence quite often cannot be available. The Supreme Court further observed: "it was further pointed out that in dealing with those cases the problem faced by such institutions should be appreciated by the High Court and so long as the enquiry held was fair and afforded the candidate an opportunity to defend himself, the matter should not be examined with the same strictness as applicable to criminal charges in the ordinary courts of law. "