HARBANS SINGH NIRMAL Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant who is employed as a Clerk In the office of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, as' is apparent from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, was a student of L.L.B. Class of the Punjab University Law College, Chandigarh, in the year 1961 -82 and took that examination in April, 1962. On 29 -4 -1962. he received a copy of the letter addressed by the Principal, Law College, Chandigarh, to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, requesting that the Petitioner be sent to the Principal for recording his statement as he was alleged to have been involved in a serious case. The Petitioner in pursuance of this letter, actually came to Chandigarh and his statement was recorded by the Principal, Punjab University Law College on 9 -5 -1962. On 19 -5 -1962 the Syndicate of the Punjab University, Respondent No. 2, accepted the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor, Respondent No. 3, and resolved that the candidature and result of the Appellant be cancelled and he be disqualified for a period of one year. I may also observe that since the result of the Petitioner had not yet been announced, the resolution in substance meant cancellation of the Appellant's candidature.

(2.) THE Appellant approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the allegations just mentioned challenging the impugned order on the ground, inter alia, that it was arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE only contention raised before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Appellant was that the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the Petitioner had not been given any opportunity of being heard and of defending himself. This aspect was elaborated by the submission, that the copies of the allegations made against him and of the statements of the other witnesses were not supplied to him, the enquiry was held 'n his absence and he was afforded no opportunity of cross -examining the witnesses produced; and he was not even asked to produce his defence. Proceedings having been held ex -parte and the order passed behind his back, the Appellant complained that the order was liable to be quashed Reliance before the Single Bench was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School of Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta : AIR 1962 SC 1110. The learned Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Appellant's grievance was without merit because the Appellant had admitted his presence on the spot and had given his own version of the incident. The Principal of the Law College had also recorded the statement of the teacher who was an eye -witness of the occurrence and some pages of the book belonging to Avtar Singh Chahal revealing his identity snatched at the spot by the girl were also produced before the Principal. It was on this material that the Principal had sent his report to the Vice -Chancellor who, after going through the material, made his own recommendation to the Syndicate. The entire material was then placed before the Syndicate which passed the impugned order after considering all the facts. The Appellant's representation made later was also placed before the Syndicate and the decision was reconsidered as a result whereof the Appellant was given some relief in the form of quashing the order of disqualification. On the basis of these circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant had been afforded an opportunity to explain his position with regard to the allegations made against him. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Das Gupta's case : AIR 1962 SC 1110 was distinguished and the ratio of Surincler Kumar Bunsal v. Punjab University, 1962 -04 Pun LIR 944 was relied upon in dismissing the writ petition.