MADHU KUMAR Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Himachal Pradesh University disqualifying him from appearing at any University examination for two years.

(2.) The petitioner appeared at the Pre-Medical examination for the year 1971 conducted by the Hirnachal Pradesh University. On April 28. 1971 he sat for paper A in Biology. According to the petitioner he completed the paper and handed over the answer book to the supervisory staff in the examination hall. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner took the answer book away with him and destroyed it leaving merely the title page in his possession. It is said that he was summoned to the College office and his father, Shri Kripal Datta Bhagra. was also sent for. It is alleged by the respondents thai; the petitioner made a statement in the office before the College Principal and the Supervisory staff admitting that he had destroyed the answer book and that only the title page was available, and the petitioner's father also made a statement expressing the belief that the petitioner was responsible for the destruction of the answer book. The petitioner pleads that the statements made by him and his father were made at the dictation of the College authorities, who were trying to shield the Supervisory Staff from the consequences of the loss of the answer book which had in fact been surreptitiously removed from their custody by another student Satinder Mohan in order to create difficulties for them. The petitioner urges that he did not take the answer book away from the examination hall and that the statement recorded before the Principal was made by him under coercion. Thereafter, it appears, proceedings were taken for holding, an enquiry into the matter and a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Examination Discipline Committee on July 14. 1971. The petitioner was then in Bombay. The notice was received by the petitioner's father. It seems that the notice was not forwarded by the father to the petitioner, and the father took it upon himself to reply to the notice. In his reply, the father stated that the paper in Biology was so difficult that the petitioner could not, answer it and in the belief that he was in any event failing in the paper he took the answer book away with him without realising that he was thereby acting in violation of the University Rules. The petitioner's father volunteered to appear in place of the petitioner before the Examination Discipline Committee. The Committee took into account the reports of the Supervisory staff, the statements of the petitioner and his father recorded in the office, and the explanation attempted by the father in response to the notice. It seems that the petitioner's father also appeared before the Committee and the material relied upon by the University was placed before him. It is said that he was given an opportunity to plead on behalf of his son and answer the charge. It is not known whether the petitioner's father availed of that opportunity, and if so, what statement was made by him. On July 16, 1971. the Committee held the petitioner guilty under Regulation 15 (d) of the Regulations "Use of Unfair Means" of the Punjab University Calendar, Vol. 1, 1970 and disqualified him for a period of two years including that in which he had been found guilty. The order was conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated September 3. 1971. The petitioner now challenges that order.

(3.) The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order was made in breach of the principles of natural justice. The notice informing him of the charge and giving him an oppotu-nity to appear before the Examination Discipline Committee was not served on him. It is also urged that the statement contained in his father's letter sent to the Committee in response to the notice cannot be treated as the petitioner's reply to that notice It is further submitted that on receipt of the letter of the petitioner's father, which intimated that the petitioner was at Bombay, the Committee should have directed the issue of a notice to him at Bombay.