RAM NARAYAN KESHORI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the order passed by the Calcutta University approving the resolution of the Board of Discipline dated 10-5-79 cancelling the examination of the petitioners who appeared at the B. Lib. Science Examination held in 1978 and the letter issued by the Board of Discipline intimating the same to the Head of the Department of Library Science of Calcutta University which are annexed to the writ petition as an-nexures C and D respectively.

(2.) The salient facts in short as appear from the averments in the petition are as follows. The petitioners appeared in the B. Lib. Sc. Examination in 1978. The said examination was held at Pischall Hall, Darbhanga Building College Street Campus, on and from Aug. 29; 1978 to Sept. 19, 1978 and Classification practice (paper II) examination was held on Sept. 15, 1978. On or about May 24. 1978, the result of the said examination was published but as regards the result of the petitioners they were not published and were withheld with the remark "result withheld" against the name of each of the petitioners. Thereafter on Mar. 28, 1978 copies of charge-sheets were issued by the Secretary, Board of Discipline, to the petitioners intimating them of the charges brought against them and directing them to appear at the meeting of the sub-committee of the Board of Discipline which was entrusted to investigate into the cases of Breach of discipline at the said Lib. Sc. Examination held in 1978 to be held on 6-4-1979 at 3 p. m. It has also been stated in the said notice if the petitioners defaulted in appearing before the sub-committee on the date of the meeting as mentioned hereinbefore the matter would be decided ex parte without any further reference to them. One of the copies of the charge-sheets as well as one of the copies of the notices have been annexed as annexure A to the writ petition. It has been stated that the said notices are vague and the same did not contain relevant particulars in regard to the said charge-sheet It has also been submitted that no copy of the report alleged to have been submitted by the examiner Shri P. C. Banerjee was served on any of the petitioners though investigation was sought to be made by the sub-committee on the basis of the above report. The petitioners it is stated, appeared before the sub-committee as directed by the said notice and denied the allegations levelled against them in the aforesaid charge sheet. It has also been stated that while they appeared before the sub-committee the answer scripts which were alleged to be vitiated by copying were not produced nor were the same shown to them in order to give them a reasonable opportunity of knowing in particular the nature of the charges and in controverting them properly. It has been further stated that no evidence either oral or documentary was recorded by the subcommittee in their presence nor they were allowed to cross examine the witnesses examined and/or to controvert the evidence so recorded by adducing evidence in support of their case. The sub-committee adopted certain resolutions at its meeting which were considered by the Board of Discipline at its meeting on May 10, 1979 and the particular matter in question appeared as item no. 9 of the proceeding. A resolution was adopted by the Board of Discipline to the effect that the petitioners' examination be cancelled and the said resolution was recommended to be submitted before the Calcutta University Council for their approval. Accordingly on May 18, 1979 the Calcutta University Council at its meeting under agenda No. 31 considered and resolved that the resolution of the Board of Discipline dated 10-5-1979 with regard to the candidates bearing roll Nos. mentioned therein be approved. This resolution of the Calcutta University Council was intimated by the Secretary, Board of Discipline, to the Head of the Department of Library Science, Calcutta University under communication No. BD/255/RA/B-Lib. Sc./78 dated 2-7-1979 which has been annexed as annexure D to the petition.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned resolution adopted by the Calcutta University Council is vitiated by non-observance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the sub-committee appointed by the Board of Discipline in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 62 framed under the Calcutta University Act. 1966 did not allow the petitioners any opportunity to be present at the time when it examined Shri P. C. Banerjee on whose report the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and on whose statements as recorded by the sub-committee the charges were held to have been brought home. It has also been contended that the sub-committee which under proviso to Clause (5) of Ordinance 62 of the Calcutta University First. Ordinances. 1966 requires to be consisted of three members and the quorum in the meeting shall be two did not adopt the impugned resolution at the meeting wherein Shri P. C. Baneriee was examined inasmuch as in that meeting quorum was not there as according to the petitioners only one member of the committee, i. e., respondent No. 6 was present. The other member, respondent No. 7, Dr. A. K. Ohdedar, Chief Librarian, was absent and the third member Shri p. C. Baneriee of the said sub-committee was not permitted to participate in the proceeding of the meeting as a member by an order of the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that it was at Ms instance this prosecution and/or disciplinary proceeding was started and respondent no. 5 was asked to be present as an observer in his place. It has therefore been submitted that the meeting of this sub-committee wherein Shri P. C. Baneriee was examined is also bad and the proceeding adopted in the said meeting is illegal and of no effect as it is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Ordinance 62 Clause (5) of the Calcutta University First Ordinances. 1966. The instant Rule was issued but the prayer for interim order was not allowed.