SUBRATA KUMAR SARKAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a tale of a twin brothers. The providence is presenting them similarities in appearance, and identical events in their respective life. The writ petitioners who appeared in the B.A. (Part-1) Examination with Honours in English held in the year 1989 by the University of Calcutta, have challenged the notice of charges and the order of punishment being Annexures "F" & "G" to the writ petition. It is stated in details that the petitioners are alleged to be good students and they obtained Scholarships at various stages of the School and College career. As regular students from Bangabasi College, Calcutta, they appeared in the B.A. (Part-1); Examination and the Examination Centre was at Moulana Abul Kalarn Azad College at Calcutta. They were, however, surprised not to find their Roll Numbers while result of the aforesaid examination was published. Subsequently, they received notices dated 4th of Septernber, 1989 from the Secretary, Board of Discipline along with a copy of chargesheet intimating as if they committed breach of discipline in the examination and they were directed to appear before the Sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline on 19th October, 1989 at 12.30, P.M., in the room of the Deputy Inspector of College, Centenary Building, 5th Floor, Calcutta University and to furnish explanation about their conduct. The chargesheet as annexed to the aforesaid notice to show cause indicated inter alia that in contravention of the rules of the examination, they surreptitiously took away some additional blank sheets of paper previously written double answers on them outside the Examination Hall before hand, and stitched them with the answer script in History, 2nd Paper. Copies of the said notice and the chargesheet given to both the petitioners have been annexed to the writ petition and marked collectively with the letter "F". It is further stated that the petitioners have duly appeared before the Sub-Committee and denied the charges. Towards the end of December, 1989 the petitioners were informed through their college that their examination in B.A. Part -I have been cancelled and they have been debarred for one year from appearing at any examination of the said University. A Copy of the said order of punishment bearing Memo No. BD-01852/RA/B.A. (Part - I) and (Pass)/89 dated 12th December, 1989 is annexed and marked with the letter "G". The petitioners have alleged that immediately after coming to learn the said order of punishment they went to Principal of Maulana Azad College, Calcutta who was the Presiding Officer of the Examination Centre for the petitioners to ascertain whether he made any report against the petitioners regarding any breach of discipline. Said Principal, however, gave a certificate to the petitioners dated 3rd January, 1990 to the effect that the petitioners bearing their respective roll numbers appeared at all Honours Papers and Pass Papers on the scheduled dates of examination in the B.A. Part-1 Examination, 1989 from the College Centre (Moulana Azad College) and it was certified that there has been no allegation against them from the Centre-in-Charge. The petitioners also met the Principal of Bangabasi College and the said Principal and the Head of the Department of English jointly gave a certificate to the petitioners for production before the Appropriate Authority with a request to the Vice-Chancellor to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically. It is stated in details that there was heavy publicity in newspapers at the intervention of certain Senate Members and politicians and the petitioners have the occasion to meet the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Vice-Chancellor and several paper cuttings have been annexed to the writ petition relating to the various publicity made in respect of the case of the petitioners as if no proper justice has been made in the case of bona fide good students. The petitioners however, finding no other adequate and alternative remedy are alleged to have come to this Writ Court to seek the reliefs and they have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari commanding the respondents to produce and/or cause production of the entire records of the case including the report of the investigation, minutes of the enquiry, investigation by the Sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline and the Vice-Chancellor at the time of hearing of the instant application so that on their perusal, conscionable justice may be done. After the inspection of records produced by the University Authorities, and after filing the affidavit-in-Opposition, the petitioners filed an appropriate Affidavit-in-Reply challenging the entire proceedings of Review made in terms of the order of the Vice-Chancellor on 1.1.1990 and also the ultimate decision of the Syndicate on 13.2.1990 mainly relating to the decision to cancel the examination of the petitioners and debarring them to appear in any examination for one year, as taken earlier on 8.12.1990.

(2.) The writ petition is strongly contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition sworn by the Registrar of the University of Calcutta. It is disclosed, inter alia, that the petitioners were the candidates for B.A. (Part-1) Examination 1989 having Roll Nos. 085/MHA/ 0042 and 085,/MHA/0043. In respect of History Second Paper in the Pass Subjects, the petitioners were "Reported Against" by the concerned Examiner to the Controller of Examinations that the petitioners seemed to have taken recourse to unfair means in answering History (Pass) Paper-II in the Final B.A. Part-1 Examination, 1989. The said Examiner is alleged to have endorsed upon the additional sheets, as - "these sheets seen to be supplied from outside." There is also observation of the Examiner that "these sheets do not seem to be written in the Examination Hall". The Controller of Examinations consequently reported the said matter to the Secretary, Board of Discipline whereupon it was detected that the said material irregularities amounted to breaches of discipline by the petitioners and the matter was complained to the Secretary, Board of Discipline in terms of Clause 62(2) of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners, were charge sheeted for committing breach of discipline in History Second Paper (Pass Course) B.A. Part-1 Examination, 1989 in contravention of the rules of examination as to surreptitiously taking away some additional blank sheets previously, and writing answers on them out- side the Examination Hall before hand, and subsequently stitched them with their answer scripts. The petitioners were given opportunity to appear be- fore the Sub-Committee appointed by the Board of Discipline under the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979 on 19th October, 1989 to defend themselves against the said charges. The said Sub-Committee its one, course recommended cancellation of the Examination of the petitioners and their debarment for one year from appearing at any examination of the University. The said recommendation of the Sub-Committee was placed before the Board of Discipline of the University of Calcutta on 4th of December, 1989 and after considering the case of the petitioners the Board of Discipline resolved in the Meeting held on 4th December, 1989 that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee in the case of the petitioners be accepted. It is stated specifically by the University Authority that resolutions passed in the meeting of the Board of Discipline held on 4th of December, 1989 were duly placed before the Vice-Chancellor in the Syndicate on 5th of December, 1989 and were duly approved by him under the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Thereafter, the decision of the Board of Discipline was conveyed to the proper Authorities for information and necessary action by and under Circular No. 13D/852/-RA/BA (Part-1), Pass/89 dated 12th December, 1989. It is further disclosed in the affidavit- in-opposition that in the meantime on 5th December, 1989 a letter dated 6th December, 1989 sent by Sri M. K. Gupta of the Department of English and Sri Ashis Kumar Mukherjee of the Department of History of Bangabasi College, Calcutta was received by the Vice-Chancellor of the said University in which the said teachers prayed for an interview of the Vice-Chancellor in connection with the "R.A." case of the petitioners who are good students, of Bangabasi College. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 1st January, 1990 directed that the cases of the petitioners should be put up before then Disciplinary Committee for review. In pursuance of the said direction of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta, the Sub- Committee of the Board of Discipline again held a meeting on 16th January, 1990 for reviewing its earlier decision. The petitioners were asked to appear before the said Sub-Committee and the, Sub-Committee recommended that the decision taken by them earlier should be adhered to. The, proceedings and recommendation of the Sub-Committee dated 16th January, 1990 were thereafter placed before the Vice Chancellor who after going through the same directed the petitioners should to appear before him on 1st February, 1990 in his Chamber at Darbhanga Building and the Vice-Chancellor referred the matter to the Syndicate on 13th February, 1990 and the Syndicate resolved that the earlier decision in respect of the petitioners for cancellation of their examination and their debarment for one year from appearing at any examination of the Calcutta University be adhered to. The Syndicate further resolved in the said meeting that a comprehensive enquiry be made into the availability of loose blank answer sheets to candidates from outside the examination campus and the leakage of questions before the examinations, if so, as well as the nature of invigilation carried out in the Examination Hall. It is placed on record that the Sub-Committee and/or the Board of Discipline had reached the conclusion after considering the probabilities and circumstantial evidence and in particular, internal and intrinsic evidences available from the answer scripts of the petitioners themselves. It-is stated that the said conclusion is honest and taken bona fide. It cannot be said that the said conclusion was reached and/or the recommendations were made on no evidence at all as alleged. Since this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question, the writ petition appears to be misconceived and it may be dismissed accordingly as submitted.

(3.) By an order dated 28.2.90 this Court recorded the submission of the learned lawyers of the respective parties as to production of necessary documents relating to the proceedings of the Sub-Committee and the Review Committee for effective adjudication of the matter. Mr. Joyanta Kumar Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the Calcutta University Authorities submitted that all the documents will he allowed to be inspected and necessary papers relating to the "proceedings will be made available upon requisition. At the time of hearing, xerox copies of a number of documents have been filed by the University Authorities and the learned Lawyers appearing for the petitioners have had the occasions to inspect the relevant original records. Copies of the documents in a bundle are kept on record.