VINOD KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of four writ petitions, that is, Civil Writ No. 2710 of 1964 (Vinod Kumar Mahajan v. The State of Punjab and Ors.), Civil Writ No. 2760 of 1964 (Sushil Kumar Gupta v. The State of Punjab and Ors.), Civil Writ No. 150 of 1965 (Shingara Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors.) and Civil Writ No. 817 of 1965 (Parampal Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. ). Common questions of law arise in these cases though there is slight variation in regard to one relevant fact, that is, about the stand taken by the respective petitioners regarding the allegation against them on the date of occurrence and in their respective written explanations filed by them two days later. I will give detailed facts relating to the case of Vinod Kumar Mahajan and would then mention the differentiating features of the other cases before dealing with the legal question. Vinod Kumar Mahajan of pathankot (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) after having passed his Higher secondary Examination in 1962 and the Pre-Engineering Examination in April, 1963, joined the Diploma of Production Engineering Course under the Punjab engineering College, Chandigarh, in August 1963. The Production Engineering course and the examinations thereof are conducted under the Technical Board of education, Punjab. Respondent No. 2 is the Director of Technical Education, Chandigarh, and respondent No. 3 is the Principal, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. In the course of taking the First Year examination, the petitioner took his seat for taking the commerce paper on June 3, 1964, but was found within a few minutes after the commencement of the examination to be having a chit with him lying in his answer book. According to the petitioner, he had noted certain points on that chit on the evening of June 2, 1964, and had carried the chit with him up to the examination hall intentionally but he wanted to leave it outside the hall and it was only by inadvertence and oversight that he forgot to throw it away when the examination, started. When this chit was noticed by the invigilator, he had to "snatch it away" from the petitioner and handed it over to the Superintendent of the examination centre. The words "snatched away" have been taken by me from the written explanation of the petitioner dated June 5, 1964, which is hereinafter referred to. Admittedly, the chit related to the subject on which the paper had to be taken on that day but it is alleged that it did not cover any of the questions which actually came in the question paper. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner had not copied anything from the chit in his answer book. When the invigilator took possession of the chit, he recorded a certificate on a separate sheet in the following words:

(2.) THE above mentioned report of the Superintendent along with the written explanation of the petitioner dated June 5, 1964, was forwarded by the superintendent of the examination to the Examination Committee concerned, of which the Director of the Technical Education is the Chairman.

(3.) THOUGH the result of the petitioner for the First Year Examination was not declared as the abovementioned case of unfair means against him was pending, the petitioner was not debarred in July 1964 from starting his studies in the second year class. On September 8, 1964, the petitioner along with the petitioners in the three connected writ petitions and one Dharampal, wrote a joint letter (Annexure A-l) to the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, regarding the above incident. In this letter it was stated, inter alia, as follows :--