RASMITA PATNAIK Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UTKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Utkal University in its notification No. 231 dated 22.4.1998 at Annexure -A penalised the petitioner by cancelling he result of Plus Three Final Degree Examination, 1997 and further debarring her from appearing at the next examination. The validity of the aforesaid imposition of penalty is assailed by her in this writ application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the petitioner is that she was submitted to appear in the Plus Three Final Degree Examination, 197 as a regular candidate from K.B.S. Women's College, Darghapatna, Cuttack. Her Roll number was 137C94033. On 15.4.1997 when she was taking History Paper -III examination, a flying squad entered the hall at about 12 noon. She was sitting in the front row of the hall close to the seat of the Invigilator. At that time someone from behind her back threw some papers which fell by her side. She had no knowledge or scope to know who threw it as she was busy in writing her answers. A member of the flying squad lifted the paper from the floor and asked the petitioner to explain her conduct with regard to it. Besides denying her knowledge, she asserted that she did not utilise those papers for answering any question. When the result of Plus Three Arts Examination, 1997 was published, she found that her result was withheld for alleged malpractices. To her utter surprise, she was asked in letter dated 29,12.1997 at Annexure -4 to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against her for being in possession of unauthorised material in the examination hall on 15.4.1997 and using the same in answering the questions. The petitioner submitted her explanation at Annexure -5 denying the allegations. On 29.1.1998 she appeared before the Inquiry Committee and verified the material alleged to have been found in her possession. On examination, she noticed that except the answer for short question No. 4(b)(ii) 'Dandi March' where there is some similarity with the answer made by her, no other answer tallied with the incriminating material. She stated before the Inquiry Committee that Question No. 4(b)(ii) is nothing but a general knowledge which could be answered by a common person. The result of her examination was not published and later she could know that her examination was cancelled and she was debarred from appearing at next examination.

(3.) SHRI Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the penalty imposed on the petitioner being based on no evidence is unsustainable in law. In view of such contention, it is relevant to note the charges framed against the petitioner as communicated in the notice dated 29.12.1997 at Annexure -4. They are as follows : (i) On 15.4.1997 she was in possession of unauthorised materials in examination hall in contravention of Rule 4 of the Rules of Guidance of the Candidates; (ii) She used the said unauthorised materials in answering question No. 4 (b)(ii) in History Paper -Ill.