NARENDRA NARAIN MISRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Narendra Narain Misra. The material facts are as follows. The petitioner was a student of M. L. K. Degree College, Balrampur, Gonda, in B. A. Final. The petitioner appeared in the B. A. final Examination held by the Gorakhpur University, through M. L. K. Degree College Centre of which the Principal was the Centre Superintendent. Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma who were invigilators in the room in which the petitioner had a seat in the said examination charged the petitioner with having used unfair means in answering the Psychology Paper. According to opposite parties' case as set out in the counter-affidavit a manuscript containing certain matter relating to the Psychology Paper was actually seized from the petitioner's possession by the said invigilators on the spot. The petitioner was asked to fill the form of reporting cases of use of unfair means at the examination (Annexure C to the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). The petitioner filled the relevant columns of this form then and there and admitted in writing that a piece of paper containing certain points was seized from his possession, but he denied having used the same in answering the question paper and explained that the paper happened to be with him inadvertently as before start of examination he was learning certain points from this paper. He contested also that this paper had any connection with the subject of Psychology. The two invigilators Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma drew up a report on the prescribed form (copy of which is Annexure D to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). In this report the invigilators stated that they had noticed the petitioner hiding a piece of paper in his handkerchief and when asked to show the paper he refused to do so and placed the paper with the handkerchief inside his shirt. He refused to show that pocket when asked to do so. Then the Superintendent was called for help and with difficulty and after lot of fuss being created the petitioner handed over the piece of paper taken out of his pocket in the presence of the Superintendent. After his pockets were searched by the Superintendent he was seen swallowing a piece of paper with the help of a glass of water. Then he threw the second copy which was issued to him and left the place, the Superintendent of the examination centre also recorded the same day his own report on the said prescribed form for reporting cases of use of unfair means at examinations and the same is contained in Annexure E filed with the counter-affidavit. The same day on 11-5-1968 the Centre Superintendent reported the incident by a letter to the Registrar Examinations, Gorakhpur University along with the matter contained in the Form E-4. In this report the Superintendent reported that in the morning session of the examination held on 11-5-1968 the petitioner while appearing in the Psychology Paper-I was found in possession of a manuscript written on one side. With this letter were enclosed the relevant documents including the manuscript slip said to have been seized from the petitioner and his notings on Form E-4, the report of the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent on this Form (Annexures C, D and E attached to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). Copy of the manuscript slip allegedly seized from the petitioner is Annexure G filed with the- same counter-affidavit. That very day (11-5-1968) the petitioner sent a complaint to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, under registered cover alleging that Sri P. S. Kapoor and Sri S. C. Sharma nursed past ill will against him and through a well hatched design had tried to falsely implicate him for being in possession of a piece of paper and for having used unfair means. In this complaint the petitioner denied not only the fact that any such manuscript was recovered from his possession but alleged that he was made under duress to admit in the prescribed form, on the dictation of these persons, that the same was recovered from his possession. The petitioner claimed to have lodged a report also with the police alleging coercion in obtaining his admission about recovery of paper. The Registrar was requested to ignore the reports of the college authorities and prayed for an opportunity to produce defence in respect of his case. Thereafter the petitioner received a show-cause notice under signature of the Registrar dated 16-7-1968 alleging the use of unfair means by him in the Psychology Paper. He was required to submit an explanation within specified time (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). The petitioner submitted a written explanation dated 20-7-1968, vide Annexure B to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, denying the use of unfair means in the Phychology Paper and disputing correctness of report of the Centre Superintendent. On the allegation of past animus against Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, Head of Geography Department, it was alleged that he got him falsely implicated with the help of his friend Sri P. S. Kapoor. The authorities were requested also in this connection to take into account the contents of the petitioner's application to the Registrar dated 11-5-1968 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).

(2.) IT is contended for the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, Gorakhpur University in their counter- affidavit that an enquiry into the petitioner's reported conduct was made by an Examination Committee, consisting of all the Deans of Faculties appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, and it was held that the report of use of unfair means against the petitioner was correct. Accordingly the petitioner's examination for the year 1968 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at any University examination upto 1970. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar's letter dated 31-7-1968 (Annexure 3 of the writ petition). By an application dated 22-8-1968 (Annexure 4 of the writ petition) the petitioner prayed the Vice-Chancellor to review this decision. This prayer was rejected by the Vice- Chancellor's order dated 14-3-1969 (Annexure 5 of the writ petition). The petitioner assails validity of the order dated 31-7-1968 (Annexure 3) on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to substantiate his case, to rebut the adverse reports made against him, and to cross-examine those who gave adverse reports and because the show- cause notice was vague and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Thirdly, the order is impugned on the ground that it was vitiated by mala fides. Order of the Vice-Chancellor refusing to review the case is challenged on the ground that it was a case of failure on the part of Vice- Chancellor to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. The petitioner prays for Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31-7-1968 (Annexure 3) and 14-3-1969 (Annexure 5 of the writ petition).

(3.) THE first submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that there was violation of principles of natural justice because personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and that no opportunity was given to him to produce evidence in support of his defence. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 198 that "the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions." They further observed in para. 11 of the report that "the requirements of natural justice in case of an enquiry of this kind are, first, that the person accused should know the nature of accusation made : secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. There is really nothing more."