SUBHAS CHANDRA PAUL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of cancellation of the examination of the petitioner for the year 1968 and debarring the petitioner from appearing in the examination of Pt. I and Pt. II of B. A. for the year 1969-70. The petitioner was a student of Surendra Nath College affiliated to the University of Calcutta. The petitioner sat for the examination of B. A. Pt. I in the year 1968 of the Calcutta University and his examination Centre was at Taltala High School. When the result of the examination came out, it appeared that against his name there was a remark "reported against". By a letter dated 19th November, 1968 issued by the Secretary Board of Discipline, the petitioner was charged with breach of discipline at the B. A. Part I Examination, 1968 alleging that In contravention of the rules of examination, the petitioner was found copying from books and notes while appearing in Bengali, Paper II Examination. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub-Committee on 25th November, 1968 at 1 P. M. The show cause notice which was served on the petitioner as annexure "A" to the petition is in the following terms:-- SENATE HOUSE CALCUTTA The 19-11-1968 CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY From:-- Sri A. C. Banerji, M. A., Secretary, Board of Discipline. Calcutta University. To:-- Sri Subhas Chandra Pal, Roll Call No. 3594. B. A. Part I, Examination. 1968 He/She is hereby informed that a meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline, constituted to investigate the cases of breach of discipline at the B. A. & B. Sc. Part I, Examination, 1968 will be held in the meeting room of the Secretary, Board of Discipline, Centenary Building, 3rd Floor Calcutta University, on the 25th November, 1968, at 1 P. M. to investigate his/her case regarding a report against him/her that he/she committed breach of discipline at the B. A. Part I, Examination, 1968. He/She is hereby directed to appear before the said Sub-Committee on the date and at the hour and place mentioned above and furnish an explanation of his/her conduct. A charge-sheet is annexed herewith. If he/she does not appear before the Sub-Committee as directed, it will be presumed that he/she has nothing to say in his/her defence and his/her case will be decided ex parte without any further reference to him/her. Sd./- A. C. Banerji. (A. C. Banerji) Secretary, Board of Discipline. End: One copy of Charge-sheet. Name. Subhas Chandra Pal. Roll. Call No. 3594, You are hereby charged with having committed breach of discipline at the B. A. Part I, Examination, 1968. PARTICULARS 1. That in contravention of the rules of the Examination you were found copying from some book and notes while appearing in Bengali Paper II. Sd/- A. C. Banerji. Secretary, Board of Discipline. Dated, Calcutta the 19th November, 1968. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Committee and denied the charges levelled against him whereupon the members of the Board of Sub-Committee put question to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied. It is alleged by the petitioner that the relevant answer paper was not shown to the petitioner nor the books and notes from which the petitioner is alleged to have copied were produced and/or no one came forward to prove the charges. It is alleged after the hearing on 25th November, 1968 by Sub-Committee, no order was communicated to the petitioner but from circular dated 10th December, 1968 issued to the Principals of all the Colleges, it appeared that the petitioner was debarred from appearing in B. A. Part I, Examination to be held in 1969 and 1970. It may be stated here that the examination for the year 1969 has already been held and the petitioner has already lost his chance of appearing in that examination. It is further 3tated by the petitioner as it appears from the petition that the enquiry continued on other dates also and after the examination of the petitioner, the Head Master of Taltala High School on whose complaint the charge-sheet was drawn up was heard on these allegations. The petitioner challenged the order and obtained the present Rule. The University of Calcutta appeared in the matter and filed an affidavit supporting their case. It is stated in Paragraphs 15 and 16 that the petitioner and 47 other candidates took recourse to unfair means on 28th May, 1968 when the examination of Bengali Paper II was going on at the Taltala High School Centre. It is stated that the answer scripts of the petitioner along with those of 47 other examinees were received from the Officer-in -charge of Taltala High School Centre with the remark "reported against." It is stated that the Head Master of the School made a report about it on 28th May, 1968 and sent the report along with the answer scripts but the relevant letter having been misplaced the University asked the Head Master for the copy of the same and a copy of the letter dated 28th May. 1968 was sent to the respondents. On the basis of the said letter the proceeding was drawn up. It is stated that the petitioner was examined by the Sub-Committee on 25th November. 1968 and the petitioner was interrogated upon by the members of the Sub-Committee, The report of the Officer-in-Charge was shown to the petitioner but no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner. Thereafter it is stated that on full consideration of the facts the Sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline submitted a report on 29th November, 1968 against the petitioner on the cases of breach of discipline. The said report was confirmed by the Board of Discipline which was ultimately confirmed by the Syndicate of the University of Calcutta and the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination B. A. Part I & II for the year 1969 and 1970.

(2.) On behalf of the Sub-Committee a joint affidavit by Sm. Mira Dutta Gupta, Sri Kiron Chandra Choudhury and Sri Paresh Chandra Bhattacharyya was filed. In paragraph 6, it is stated that on 25th November, 1968 the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Committee and the petitioner was interrogated by them. It is further stated that petitioner was shown the report of the Presiding Officer of Taltala High School and it explained the contents of the charge. The petitioner denied the said charges and further stated that there was no disturbance in the examination Hall. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows:--

(3.) Mr. P. K. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner contended that the proceeding is, on the face of it, without jurisdiction as the charges are vague and cannot be sustained and as such the petitioner could not make any proper representation to the said charge. Secondly the report on which the charge was based was never shown to the petitioner and thirdly witnesses were examined and the report of persons was considered without giving the opportunity to the petitioner to test the evidence taken behind back of the petitioner by cross-examining them.