T S HIMABALA Vs. BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was studying intermediate in Government Junior College. Yerragondapalem, in Prakasam district, She was appearing for the Intermediate Second year examination held in April, 1985. It is said that 14-4-1985 was the lost and concluding day of the examination and she was answering English paper No 2. Her registered number is 196490. Just almost at the time when the time was running out, a Flying squad Visited the premises and found that a student with registered Number 196489 was copying from the answerbook of the petitioner. At that point of time, the petitioner was answering the questions in an additional answer-book keeping aside the main answer-book which was completely answered. The petitioner was confronted on the spot. She stated that she was busy answering the questions in the additional paper book and did not notice the other student with registered No. 196489, stealing the answer papers from her main answer Book. The other student was also examined on the spot simultaneously. That student admitted that he copied about 12 lines from he answer-book of the petitioner but the did not know without her knowledge. He stated that he helped himself, without being noticed, with the answfr-book of the petitioner and after he had copied about 12 lines from the petitioner's answer book without her knowledge, the flying squad came and noticed. The answer-book of the pe itioner was imme- diately seized, an enquiry was conducted and on 19-3-1985, the respondent No. 2 passed an order cancelling her performance at the Intermediate examination for March, 1985, and further debarred her from appearing for he two subsequent examinations viz., October, 1985 and March, 1935. The petitioner appealed against the aforesaid order to the appellate authority, the respondent No. 1 herein. The appellate authority passed an order on 19-11-1935 confirming the order of the second respondent. Sri Koka Raghava Rao questions the validity of the orders of the second respondent as well as the first respondent. His first objection is that there was total nonapplication of mind on the part of both the authorities as to the extent of punishment required in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that all that was dona by respondent No. 2 was to fill in a cyclostyled form which contained punishments as indicated above as a matter of routine. It is stated that respondent No. 2 failed to apply his mind whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a serious punishment of the above kind is really un-called for. A more formidable objection of Mr. Raghava Rao to the orcler passed by the first respondent is that till appellate order was passed by the same officer who passed the order dated 19-8-1935 awarding punishment. I have seen the original orders. It would appear that the order in appeal was passed by the same officer who passed the ordar originally awarding the punishment. Mr. Raghava Rao justifiably points out that this is a wholly unsatisfactory way of disposing of an appeal. It is further pointed out that even that appellate order is merely a cyclostyled order filling up blanks without disclosing any application of mind. Finally it is submitted that the petitioner had already lost the opportunity to qualify for the examination for March, 1985 and also the subsequent two examinations in October, 1985 and March, 1988. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a brilliant student with reference to the marks obtained in the first year (she got more than 60%)

(2.) Sri Mukunda Rao, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the act of copying was accepted by the other student and it was too naive on the part of the petitioner to explain that the other student was copying from her answer script without her knowledge. The learned counsel, who had been shown the original order awarding the punishment and the subsequent order of the appellate authority confirming the punishment, is unable to state how the same officer could have passed the original order and again confirm his own order in appeal. It has also not been possible to get any clarification whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any application of mind regarding the extent of punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances.

(3.) It seems, to me that the contentions of Mr. Raghava Rao should prevail. The respondents 1 as well as 2 dealt with the matter in a very routine fashion. It is extremely disturbing that the same officer who awarded he punishment should be sitting in appeal and confirm" his own order. There is also nothing to show that in awarding the punishments to the petitioner, there was any application of mind. The student who copied frankly confessed on the spot that he did so by quietly helping himself with the answer paper of the petitioner without her knowledge. That was also the explanation of the petitioner which was recorded at the time when the flying squad apprehended the petitioner as well as the other student who was copying. It seems to me that the explanation of the petitioner that the copying by the other student was without her knowledge has not been given the consideration that it deserved. In any event, I am not satisfied that facts and circumstances of the case would call for a deterrent punishment of the kind inflicted.