TRIBENDRALAL CHOUDHURY Vs. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner herein impugns the order D/- 15-12-81 (Annexure-F) issued by the Deputy Registrar (Examination), Gauhati University, informing the petitioner that his B.A. (Two Year) Examination of 1980 has been cancelled and he has been further debarred from appearing at any University Examination for two subsequent years for his assaulting invigilator in the said examination.

(2.) THE facts are short. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part-II 1980 examination which ended on 5-5-81 from the Cotton College, Gauhati, under Roll No. 14127. On 6-5-81 his father received a letter dated 6-5-81 (Annexure-A) from the Principal, Cotton College. It stated that there was some anomaly relating to the petitioner's examination, and, therefore, the father was urgently requested to come to the Principal's office with his son, the petitioner, by 7th May, 1981. When the petitioner with his father met the Principal, on being asked the petitioner denied that there was any assault of any invigilator by him. While the matter was expected to have ended there, the petitioner received a letter D/- 17-9-81 (Annexure-B) informing him that his result was withheld on a confidential report that he assaulted invigilator, Sri S. Choudhury (later on corrected as S.K. Chakravorty) while the latter was returning home after completing his invigilation duty on 5-5-81. The petitioner was asked to show cause on or before 26-9-81 why he would not be liable for appropriate action for the above charge. The petitioner showed cause in his No. TLC/1 dated 20-9-81 (Annexure-C), wherein he stated that he did not recognise Sri S. Choudhury, invigilator either by face or by name; there was no reason of assaulting him as alleged; that there was no incident of assaulting anybody by him on 5-5-81; that he submitted his answer paper as usual without any obstacles and came out of the hall and went straight to the city bus stand for proceeding towards his home as he felt very much exhausted. He expressed surprise as to what might be the intention of bringing such an allegation against him about which he had no knowledge at all. It may be noted that the name of the invigilator was yet to be corrected. The petitioner's father also sent a letter D/- 4-11-81 to the Deputy Registrar (Examination), praying that the result of his son may be declared, otherwise the life of his innocent young son might be ruined. The Deputy Registrar in reply D/- 7-11-81 informed that the case of his son had not yet been decided and the candidate would be informed in due course.

(3.) THE University in para 4 of its affidavit-in-opposition, states : -