YES PAL Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the facts are not very much in dispute. The petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary (Final) Examination of the Punjab University held in March, 1963 at Center No. 4, Government Higher Secondary School, Gurdaspur, his Roll being 45064. On 8th March, 1963 he was answering Chemistry Paper A. At about 4.30 p.m. the Zonal Inspector went to that Center and entered room No. 3 where the petitioner was answering the paper. On suspicion he looked round and found some papers from behind a box lying at a distance from where the petitioner was sitting. He took those papers into his possession. On enquiry by him the petitioner gave a statement to the Superintendent (copy Annexure R/2) which was as follows :-

(2.) According to the petitioner's allegations, his father, who is a retired Headmaster, addressed several letters to the University authorities, the last letter being of 22nd August, 1963 making enquiries as to what had happened. He got a reply dated 22nd August, 1963 from Shri Bodh Raj Malhotra, Deputy Registrar (Exams) (opy Annexure "B") to the effect that the petitioner had been disqualified for the years 1963-64. According to the return after the communications (copies Annexures R/1 to R/3) had been received, the University authorities started making further investigation into the matter and sent the answer books of the petitioner and Roll No. 45058 to Dr. B.R. Puri of Chemistry Department for his considered opinion if the two candidates had copied from the printed material sent to him along with the answer books, the printed material being the same which had been recovered by the Zonal Inspector from behind the box on 8th March, 1963. The report of Dr. Puri (copy Annexure R/4) in so far as it related to the petitioner was as follows :-

(3.) The first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire procedure which had been followed when the orders disqualifying the petitioner were made was in violation of the rules of natural justice as the petitioner was never adequately informed of the case he had to meet nor given a full opportunity of meeting it. The law on this point has been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kapur v. The Punjab University,1964 CurLJ 560, after a consideration of the relevant authorities including the decisions of the Supreme Court in a judgment which was delivered by me in the following words :-