ABHAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Impugned herein is the notice dated 10.6.2005 issued under the signatures of Asstt. Kul Sachiv (Confidential) Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the University) served to the petitioner listing therein the charge that the petitioner had used unfair means in the course of attempting the answers of question paper No. III (Economics) while appearing in B.A.III year examination and further that one printed piece of paper was seized from his possession.

(2.) IT would transpire from the record that reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted on 20.9.2005 by the petitioner but result of the aforesaid examination was not declared and hence, the present petition came to be instituted seeking the relief that respondent No. 2 be directed to declare result of the petitioner of B.A. 3rd year examination conducted in the year 2005.

(3.) I have bestowed my anxious consideration upon the arguments advanced across the bar and have also scanned very closely the materials on record. I have also been taken through the finding of the Unfair Means Committee. As stated supra, the charge listed out against the petitioner was that he used unfair means or attempted to use the unfair means for copying. There is nothing clinching in the finding recorded by the Committee that the petitioner either used or attempted to use the unfair means in the examination while attempting Economics paper No. III. The committee has drawn a presumption without any valid justification that petitioner might have used materials which amounts to using the unfair means in the examination on the basis of alleged recovery of a torn half-page printed piece of paper which has not been proved to have been found from the possession of the petitioner. I have searched the entire record and there is nothing on record that the offending material was found or recovered from the actual possession of the petitioner or it was found either from the desk or from a place easily accessible to him near the desk where the petitioner was sitting while writing the answers. It is also worthy of notice here that there is no shade of allegation either in the charge-sheet or anywhere else in the entire record that the petitioner had made use of torn printed paper or any other offending paper for copying or he attempted to make use of the offending piece of paper or that during the course of examination, he was caught inflagrante delicto by the invigilator or any member of the flying squad. Yet another circumstance worthy of notice in this case is that the torn piece of paper alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner did not bear signature of the petitioner. In the circumstances it makes sense that in case offending piece of paper had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the signature of the petitioner must have been obtained thereon. I have every reason to believe that the petitioner in attempting any of the questions did not appropriate for copying any offending piece of paper. There is nothing in the charge-sheet that the petitioner could have used the material in examination found from his possession.