SHINDER SINGH Vs. THE GURU NANAK UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated October 6, 1974 (copy Annexure p. 4) of the (sic) Committee of the Guru Nanak University by which the petitioner has been disqualified for four years for allegedly using unfair means.

(2.) THE main ground contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there were other answer books also with light cream coloured sheets, therefore, the only presence of the light cream coloured sheets should not be the basis for holding the petitioner guilty of using unfair means : that there are no marks of restitiching on the petitioner's answer book; that the answer books are stamped by the supervisory staff and the suspicious sheets are also stamped twice. I have examined the answer book in question and I do find that the suspected sheets of cream colours are different from the other pages of the answer book that the different ink has been used and there are marks of previous stapling on the sheets. In the view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner seems to be quite excessive as he has been disqualified from taking any examination for four years and this would mean that his whole educational career is blocked. This should not be the intention of the punishing regulation. The moderated, even in the case of criminals, is that an attempt has to be made for reforming the guilty person instead of condemning him. If the person remains disqualified for four years, he is condemned for ever and out of frustration, when he knows that his educational career is finished, he may resort to any other crime of serious nature, I am of the view that lesser punishment shall meet the ends of justice in this case. The Learned Counsel for the University states that four years' disqualification is the minimum under the regulations and lesser punishment cannot be awarded. In this connection, Mr. Mongia, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mohinder Lal Jain v. The Vice -chancellor Punjab University, 1966 PLR 835. This is a relating to the Punjab university Relevant regulation of the Punjab University is similar to that of the Guru Nanak University and a similar argument was advanced that lesser punishment cannot be awarded as in regulation, the word 'shall' is there and it is observed, while interpreting regulation 12(b) of the Punjab University Calendar, by R.S. Narula J. as he then was, that the word 'shall' in regulation 12(b) has been interpreted by the University to restrict its powers as to the quantum of punishment the University can inflict and the mere use of 'shall' should not have prevented the University in using its discretion in giving lesser punishment, if it otherwise chose to do so The word 'shall' in the context in which it has been used in regulation 12(b) really means 'may' and a discretion vests in the University to reduce the punishment inflicted on the petitioner if the University authorities otherwise think it a fit case for adopting that course. SO the word 'shall' used in regulation 12(b) of the Punjab University Calendar has been interpreted as 'may' and it is held that the University authorities have the discretion to reduce the quantum of punishment if they so desire. In the instant case, the word 'shall' has been used in Ordinance 5(a) of Guru Nanak University Calendar, 1973 and in view of the above authority 'shall' here also means 'may' and the University authorities have the discretion to reduce the punishment inflicted on the petitioner in order to meet the ends of justice. No other point is urged.