BHARAT INDU Vs. THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions (Devinder Kumar Gupta v. The Punjab University C.W. 1466 of 1965 and Bharat Indu v. The Punjab University C.W. 379 of 1966) have been heard together. Devinder Kumar Gupta's writ petition was referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother Pandit, J., on 8th February, 1966, because of the importance of the question regarding the manner in which the Standing Committee constituted under Regulation 19 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1962, Volume I, has to act while deciding cases against the examinees involving unfair means adopted by them in the examination halls. It was argued before Pandit, J., that being a quasi -judicial body, the Standing Committee had to act judicially and after giving the necessary opportunity to the examinee concerned, all the members of the Standing Committee must sit together, discuss the whole case and then pass final order. Bharat Indu's case was ordered on 20th May. 1966 by Mehar Singh, Acting C.J. (as he then was) to be heard by a Division Bench along with Devinder Kumar Gupta's case in the first week on the opening of the Court after vacation in July, 1966. The question raised in these two cases is of some importance which, as is apparent from the referring order of my learned brother Pandit, J., does not seem to have so far been determined or even seriously adverted to in any of the decided cases brought to our notice. Main arguments were addressed before us by Shri B.R. Tuli in Bharat Indu's case and Ch. Roop Chand, learned Counsel for devinder Kumar Gupta, supplemented Shri Tuli's contentions by developing some other aspects considered relevant to the decision of the main controversy, Relevant facts can now be stated.

(2.) IN Bharat Indu's case (C.W. 379 of 1966), according to the writ petition, the Petitioner was a student of the Arya Higher Secondary School, Dina Nagar, district Gurdaspur and appeared as a candidate at the Higher Secondary (Elective Groups) Examination held by the Punjab University in February, 1965, his roll number being 100705 and centre of examination, Government Higher Secondary School, Dina Nagar. When the results were declared, against the Petitioner's roll number. "Result Later On" was mentioned. The Petitioner however, joined the Government College, Gurdaspur, provisionally attending B.A. Part I Class, till 30th November, 1965, when he was informed that he had been disqualified by the Punjab University for two years by means of notification No. H.S. -65/54, dated 29th November, 1965. The Petitioner had been summoned by the Assistant Registrar, Punjab University, to appear before him on, 28th S September, 1965, in connection with an enquiry to be held in the J matter of unfair means alleged to have been used by the Petitioner in answering question No. 2 of English Paper 'B'. This was the first of communication received by him from the Punjab University, In compliance with this notice, the Petitioner appeared before the Assistant Registrar on 28th September, 1965, when he was given a questionnaire and was asked to reply to the questions entered therein. It was alleged that the Petitioner had copied from Shri Subash Chander, roll No. 100704, but the Petitioner denied this allegation. The answer to the aforesaid question No. 2 given by Shri Subash Chander was neither shown nor read out to the Petitioner, with the result that the Petitioner did not know what was the similarity which suggested that his answer was a copy of the one given by Shri Subash Chander. It was stated that the report of the Head Examiner was against the Petitioner but even that report was neither shown nor read out to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not even given an opportunity to cross -examine him on his report. The anonymous complaint on which action was being taken was also not shown or read out to him. After obtaining replies from the Petitioner to the questionnaire the Assistant Registrar asked him to come in the afternoon which the Petitioner did. On that occasion the Assistant Registrar gave a supplementary questionnaire to the Petitioner in which it was stated that the questionnaire given to the Petitioner earlier on that day along with his replies had been sent to the University Expert who implicated him of the charge of using unfair means while answering question No. 2 in English Paper B. The opinion of the Expert was stated in question No. 1 of the supplementary questionnaire to which the Petitioner replied denying, the reasons and the inference of the Expert. The Expert, it is emphasised, was not examined in the presence of the Petitioner nor was the Petitioner given an opportunity to cross -examine him for the purpose of showing that this conclusion and opinion were both wrong.' Thereafter the matter was sent to the Committee which never afforded any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is pleaded in the writ petition that these facts disclose clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner, it is submitted, appealed to the Vice -Chancellor of the University on 7th December, 1965, but the "Vice -Chancellor also did not afford him any opportunity of hearing and rejected his appeal intimating the Petitioner of the result by letter, dated 8th February, 1966. The Petitioner applied to the Assistant Registrar, Unfair Means Branch, Punjab University, for supplying certified copies of seven documents enumerated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition but neither were copies supplied to him nor any reply sent. These seven documents are:

(3.) IN the return it is admitted that the University had received an anonymous complaint alleging that the Petitioner and four other candidates had made use of unfair means on the day of English Papers "A" and "B", with the help of a Supervisor named Shiv Dayal. On receipt of this complaint, the Head Examiner and the Sub -Examiner in the English Papers "A" and "B" were requested to specially scrutinize these answer -books. Both the examiners exonerated the suspected candidates in respect of English Paper "A". The Sub -Examiner in English Paper "B" also exonerated these candidates but the Head Examiner in this paper reported that the candidate bearing Roll No. 100705 (the Petitioner) and another candidates bearing Roll No. 100704 were guilty of using unfair means during the said examination. On account of difference of opinion between these two examiners, the matter was referred to Prof. Ish Kumar of the Department of English, Punjab University, for his expert opinion. Prof. Ish Kumar after examining the papers of both the aforesaid candidates reported that Roll No. 100705 had copied from Roll No. 100704. Thereafter the University Authorities sent for these two candidates and the Petitioner appeared before the Assistant Registrar on 28th September, 1965. Both the answer -books were shown to the Petitioner along with the reports of the Head Examiner in English Paper "B" and of Prof. Ish Kumar, University Expert. "The Petitioner was given a questionnaire containing several questions which were explained to him in his own language. The Petitioner was free to seek any clarification of any question which he failed to understand. The Petitioner was fully satisfied with the mode of enquiry and he answered the various questions, as contained in the said questionnaire according to his free will in his own language. The Petitioner did not object to the mode of enquiry at that time or subsequent thereto". I have here reproduced the exact words of the return. In the light of the observations of Prof. Ish Kumar, as contained in Annexure R. 2, according to the return, the matter was again referred to him for his final report which is contained in Annexure R. 5. The same day, i.e., 28th September, 1965, the Petitioner was again interrogated in the light of Prof. Ish Kumar's final report. It is admitted in the return that the answers given by Subash Chander. Roll No. 100704, were not shown to the Petitioner as it was considered unnecessary. It is further averred that the Petitioner did not ask for an opportunity to cross -examine the Head Examiner or any other person. After collecting the aforesaid material, the record was forwarded to the Standing Committee appointed under Regulation 21 at p. 108 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1964 -65, Volume I, The Standing Committee, it is pleaded in the return, thoroughly examined the case and unanimously came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of using unfair means during the examination in English Paner "B" and disqualified him for two years, i.e., 1965 and 1966 under Regulation 13(b) given at page 104 of the said calendar. The Standing Committee is stated to consist of highly educated, independent and honest gentlemen possessing judicial and administrative experience and the members thereof, so proceeds the return, arrived at the unanimous conclusion by adopting honest means. The Petitioner's Respondent -Petition to the Vice -Chancellor is admitted and it is added that though it was not competent against the unanimous conclusion, nevertheless, the same was considered and rejected. The candidate with Roll No. 100704, according to the return, was given the benefit of doubt. It is controverter that the Standing Committee was bound to provide oral hearing to the Petitioner and it is added that the Petitioner never asked for such a hearing. The Petitioner, so proceeds the return, could copy from Roll No. 100704 without the latter's knowledge or connivance. In the return, it is further admitted that neither the Superintendent nor any member of the supervisory staff at the examination centre in question reported any use of unfair means but this, it is repeated, may be due to laxity of supervision.