HARINARAYAN BOHIDAR Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a candidate at the Pre-University Examination of the sambalpur University held in the month of April, 1970 and was appearing in the examination for logic at the Gangadhar Meher College Centre. The result of the examination of the petitioner was cancelled and he was debarred by the University from appearing in any examination prior to the second examination of 1971 on the ground that he took recourse to unfair means in the examination. The petitioner's grievance is that no reasonable opportunity was given to him for explaining the charges and though the charges were not established by any acceptable evidence, the punishment was imposed. The opposite party's case is that the charges were duly proved and the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of explaining the charges.

(2.) ANNEXURE A to the writ application, dated 2nd of June, 1970, was served on the petitioner. It runs thus: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_56_TLORI0_1971Html1.htm</FRM> It is conceded by the learned Advocates for both sides that the second charge that the petitioner refused to give a statement is irrelevant. On that charge he cannot be and in fact has not been punished. The first charge is that he was found in possession of an incriminating paper which he had brought into the examination hall with the evident intention of copying from it. There is no charge that he actually used the incriminating material in answering the logic paper. Along with annexure 4, a copy or the report of the Centre Superintendent (Annexure A-1)was given to the petitioner. Another report (Annexure A-2) which was also given along with the charge-sheet is not relevant as on its basis no finding has been given. In Annexure A-1 the Centre Superintendent in column 6 recorded the process of detection. He said that while passing by the side of the candidate he found the incriminating material under his question paper. In column 7 he stated that he did not find the candidate using the material. Rule No. 4 for the guidance of candidates as given in Annexure B to the writ application is to the effect that candidates should not have in their possession while in the examination hall any book or paper printed or manuscript, even if they are unconnected with the subject of the examination. By Annexure C dated 29th of june, 1970 the petitioner was punished and the penalty imposed was that the result of the examination was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at any examination prior to the second examination of 1971. In response to the charge-sheet the petitioner submitted his explanation (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit ). In paragraph 2 thereof he stated thus:

(3.) BY Annexure A to the writ application the University intimated the petitioner to appear in person and represent his case at the enquiry at 8 a. m. on 16-6-70. In paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ application the petitioner admits that he was present within the University premises at 8 a. m. on 16-6-70 and that at 8-30 a. m. the Vice-Chancellor and the two other members of the Malpractice Committee came to the University Office. The petitioner was asked by the Deputy Registrar to sign a book in token of his presence in the office but he was neither called inside the room nor asked any question or given any opportunity to explain the charges. These averments are denied by the Deputy Registrar in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit wherein he asserts that the petitioner appeared personally before the members of the Examination Discipline Committee; he was asked to explain the charges against him; and he admitted the possession of the incriminating material. Annexure B to the counter-affidavit supports the version of the Deputy registrar. It contains the endorsement of Sri K. C. Patnaik, Vice-Chancellor. We reject the assertion in the writ application that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to explain the charges by the Malpractice Committee.