VICE-CHANCELLOR JAMMU UNIVERSITY Vs. RAMESHWAR NATH BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Vice -Chancellor Jammu University against an order of Jaswant Singh J. sitting singly by which he has accepted a -writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) RAMESHWAR Nath Bhat, Sukhnandan Singh and Om Parkash, respondents 1 to 3 were students of the third year degree course and had applied for admission to the annual examination of the University to be held in the year 1969(March). The respondents were allowed to appear at examination and the centre fixed for holding the examination was S. R. Hry -Secondary School Jammu. The examination was to be held on 31 -3 -69. A report was made by the Superintendent invigilating the examiation held by the University for Chemistry that respondents on seeing the Chemistry paper indulged n wariton acts of misbehaviour and rowdism and tore off the papers and did not allow other students appear at the examination. This report was lade by the Superintendent to the Registrar Jammu and Kashmir University by his letter dated 1 -4 -69. The report was placed before the Syndicate f the University at its meeting held on 7 -4 -69 and he Syndicate decided that a re -examination should e held in the Chemistry paper and that disciplinary action against respondents 1 to 3 be taken. with this object in view, the Syndicate decided that the cases of the respondents and others be referred to the committee for scrutiny of unfair means. When the committee took seizen of the matter, it sent a composite notice to the responds indicating the nature of charges and the punishment which was proposed to be given to the respondents which was disqualification from appearing in any University examination for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years under statute 43. On Rameshwar Nath Bhat, Sukhnandan Singh and Om Parkash, respondents 1 to 3 were students of the third year degree course and had applied for admission to the annual examination of the University to be held in the year 1969(March). The respondents were allowed to appear at examination and the centre fixed for holding the examination was S. R. Hry -Secondary School Jammu. The examination was to be held on 31 -3 -69. A report was made by the Superintendent invigilating the examination held by the University for Chemistry that respondents on seeing the Chemistry paper indulged n wariton acts of misbehaviour and rowdism and tore off the papers and did not allow other students appear at the examination. This report was lade by the Superintendent to the Registrar Jammu and Kashmir University by his letter dated 1 -4 -69. The report was placed before the Syndicate f the University at its meeting held on 7 -4 -69 and he Syndicate decided that a re -examination should e held in the Chemistry paper and that disciplinary action against respondents 1 to 3 be taken. with this object in view, the Syndicate decided that the cases of the respondents and others be referred to the committee for scrutiny of unfair means. When the committee took seizen of the matter, it sent a composite notice to the responds indicating the nature of charges and the punishment which was proposed to be given to the respondents which was disqualification from appearing in any University examination for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years under statute 43. On receipt of this notice the respondents Sent in their explanation denying the allegations. Their explaination were supported by affidavits. The Committee after considering the show -cause of the delinquent students rejected their plea and recommended to the Syndicate that the respondents should be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the, University for a period of two years. As according to the appellant the case was one of emergency in view of the fact that the new Jammu University had been constituted and admissions had to be completed soon before the matter could be placed before the Syndicate, the Vice -Chancellor in exercise of powers vested in him under S. 13 (4) of the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, issued a notification disqualifying the petitioners as recommended by the Committee in anticipation of the Jammu division of the Syndicate. Against this order the respondents came up in writ before this court which was heard by Jaswant Sihgh J. in chambers.

(3.) MR . Ishwar Singh appearing for the appellant submitted that on the findings of the learned judge it would appear that the essential principles of natural justice had been followed as it was not open to the respondents to complain of any illegality in the proceedings conducted against them. It was further submitted that Syndicate being a domestic body the court ought not to insist on a strict observance of the rules of natural justice. While we generally agree with the tenor of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not at all satisfied that in the present case the principles of natural justice were actually followed. Admittedly the students respondents had submitted an explanation denying the allegations made against them, alleging malice on the part of the Superintendent and further alleging that it vas a case of mistaken identity. The explanation of the students respondents was supported by an affidavit and in these circumstances the least that could be done by the Scrutiny Committee was to have examined the Superintendent to prove his report in presence of the students respondents and allow the respondents to cross -examine him with a view to eliciting facts which may have gone to disprove the report of the Superintendent. If the show -cause notice of the students respondents supported on oath was to be rejected merely because the Superintendents one -sided report was to be treated as the final word then the question of giving notice to the respondents would have become an idle formality. After all serious allegations were made against the students and if proved the punishment would have prejudicially affected their career and it was therefore only proper that the students should have been given a real opportunity of meeting the case made out against them by the University. We agree with Mr. Singh that the Syndicate being a domestic Tribunal, we cannot stretch the principles of natural justice too far so as to insist on rhe authorities to conform to strict rules of evidences, nevertheless a reasonable opportunity of being heard had to be given to the students because the order proposed t ° be passed would have materially affected their career. It was submitted that such a procedure would be dilatory and impracticable because the University comes across a large number of cases of student misbehaviour. This may be so, but the difficulty of proving a thing will not obviate the necessity of proving it. Furthermore in the instant case it appears that the Committee itself took about two months to decide the matter and we do not see any reasons why within this period it could not have completed the statement of the Superintendent and his cross -examination in the presence of the students respondents. In the case of Dipa Pal V. University of Calcutta AIR 1952 Cal. 594, 597 Bose J. observed as follows : - "To brand a candidate with the stigma of adoption of unfair means at the examination or in other words finding her guilty of dishonesty or misconduct and thereby causing an irreparable injury to the character and reputation of such candidate without giving him or her any opportunity to explain, is contrary to all notions of justice and good sense."