RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAM LAL BHARGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice No. F (9) U. F. M/MA/69 dated 17th July 1969, whereby the respondent No. 1 has proposed disqualification of the petitioner for a period of three years by way of punishment under Statutes 52 and 56 (ii) for the alleged use of unfair means by the petitioner in the examination of Higher Secondary (Elective) conducted in March 1969 by the Board of Jammu and Kashmir Secondary Education, and for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioners illegally withheld result forthwith, and for further direction in the nature of mandamus permanently restraining respondent No. 3 from instituting any further enquiry into the matter specified in the show cause notice. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination in the month of March 1969 under Roll No. 3089 through Higher Secondary School Samba, The results of the said Examination were declared by the Board in the month of May 1969 but the petitioners result has been withheld. Till the day of the result the petitioner did not receive communication from the respondents in any way allegedly charging him for what is contained in the relevant para of the show cause notice (Annexure A). In the said notice the petitioner has been charged with having used his hand written pieces of paper relevant to mathematics B which were alleged to have been recovered from him in the examination Hall on 18 -3 -196J and that the petitioner had copied questions Nos. 1 (a),(b) and 5 (a) from the recovered material and that also he created disturbance in the Examination Hall. The committee for scrutiny of unfair means cases has proposed punishment of 3 years disqualification for the petitioner to appear in any examination in pursuance of the Statute 52(ii). The petitioner has further alleged that he has been proceeded against unilaterally by the respondents 1 and 2 without affording him any opportunity to meet the charges against him about the alleged guilt. No enquiry was held by the respondents in the presence of the petitioner, nor was any evidence of the charges made known to the petitioner before issuing the impugned show cause notice. The principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the punishment of disqualification has been proposed without conducting any enquiry and behind the back of the petitioner. Neither the Superintendent of the Examination nor the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ever asked the petitioner to make any statement or explanation in his defence. It is further averred that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have on the basis of some alleged evidence reached a definite conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner and the scrutiny Committee has recommended disqualification for three years and this has been done without a semblance of enquiry. The respondent No. 2 which is the statutory body vested with powers to enquire into such cases quasi judicially has already prejudged the issue and has therefore acquired bias in favour of their findings. The conduct of the respondent 2 has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about his impartiality and fairness. Therefore the respondents are not now competent to hold any enquiry in the case, and even the respondent No. 1 is not competent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore made the prayers for quashing the show cause notice and for issuance of writs the nature of which has been mentioned above. Along with the petition the petitioner has filed the affidavit and also the show cause notice (Annexure A).

(2.) THE respondent, the Joint Secretary of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Secondary Education has in his reply affidavit stated that the petitioner was found copying in the examination Hall from the pieces of papers which along with the answer book were seized from his possession by the Superintendent of the Examination Hall. The petitioner was asked to make statement but he declined to do so. The Superintendent thereupon sent the answer book, recovered pieces of paper and his report for the consideration of the respondents. After considering the same and having found that some answers seemed to have been copied in the answer book from the piece recovered from the petitioner the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that prima facie a case was made out against the petitioner and he was therefore served with the show cause notice to explain as to why the proposed punishment be not awarded to him. The proposed punishment was only a proposal which could be awarded in full or lesser degree or even the petitioner could be exonerated after he showed sufficient cause for the purpose. The said show cause notice was issued simply to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make charges known to him. The petitioner was alleged to have been caught red -handed and also to have disobeyed the orders of the Superintendent and had created disturbance inside the Hall. By issuing a show cause notice it was never meant that the authority had made up its mind against the petitioner. The principles of natural justice have not been violated but have been fully complied with. The Committee has not reached any conclusion as yet. The petition is misconceived, premature and is about a matter which is not justiciable. The case has not been prejudged and apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. There has been no contravention of the Statutes of the Board. The prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the petition merits dismissal.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.