MIR CHAND Vs. H P UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against disciplinary procreedings resulting in an order disqualifying him from appearing at the Himachal Pradesh University examinations for three years.

(2.) The petitioner Is a student of the Government Degree College, Kulu. He appeared in the B. A. Part-I examination with English, Economics, Political Science and Hindi as his subjects. While taking the paper of Political Science on May 7, 1971. he is said to have been found with a piece of paper in his hand. Shri Jiwa Nand Jiwan. an Invigilator in the examination hall, required him to hand over the paper but the petitioner tore it into two pieces and the Invigilator was compelled to snatch the pieces from his hand. He was alleged to have pushed the Invigilator and to have attempted to recover the pieces of paper back. On June 21, 1971, a charge-sheet containing four charges based on those allegations was issued to him and he was called upon to submit his explanation and to appear before the Examination Discipline Committee. On July 4, 1971, the petitioner replied denying the charges. He admitted the existence of the paper, but did not accept its ownership. On July 30, 1971, he appeared before the Examination Discipline Committee, which consisted of Shri Batuk Singh, a retired Member of the Union Public Service Commission. Shri K. L. Sethi a former Director of Education in the Himachal Pradesh Government, and Shri B. K. Sharma, formerly Principal of the S. D. B. College, Simla. The Committee found him guilty under Regulations 12 (d), 14 (c) and 20 of Volume I of the Punjab University Calendar. 1970, as applied to the Himachal Pradesh University, and disqualified him from appearing in any University examination for three years. On August 30, 1971. the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University urging that the order disqualifying him was not justified and requested reconsideration of the matter. One of the allegations in the representation was that the material upon which action had been taken had not been disclosed to him and. therefore, the principles of natural justice had been contravened. On September 3, 1971, the Registrar of the University issued a detailed memorandum to the petitioner which set out that the Examination Discipline Committee had examined the reports received from the supervisory staff and after considering the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet as well as the personal interview before the Committee he had been found guilty of using unfair means and of misconduct, and that accordingly he was disqualified from appearing in any University examination for three years as a punishment under Regulations 12 (d), 14 (c) and 20. The petitioner then submitted a further representation on October 28, 1971 to the University praying for a review of the decision. The representation was considered by the Examination Discipline Committee, and was rejected. Intimation of the rejection was communicated to the petitioner on November 15, 1971.

(3.) A number of contentions have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner before us.