GHANSHYAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks to quash the Notification No. Exam./Deb/79/3434 -3683 dated October 12, 1979, issued by the Registrar, University of Udaipur, Udaipur, where by the petitioner's M.A. Sociology I Semester Examination (in course No. 514(8) Sociology) was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing in three subsequent Semesters, to pursuance of the decision of the Executive Committee held on 11 -10 -1979, as the petitioner was found guilty of using unfair mean, at the Examination held on 21 -7 -1979.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she petitioner was served notice Annexure 1 dated September 10, 1979, whereby he was interned that a report had been received from the Centre of Examination to the effect that of July 21, 1979, he was found copying from a paper which was lying below his copy and paper. While taking away that paper, he resisted and because of that paper was torn into two pieces. He was further informed that the examiner concerned after scrutinising the incriminating material/report received the Centre has confirmed that he had made use of the material found in his possession. He was further informed that according to the rules of unfair -means of the University, Results Committee after examination of the relevant material/report had proposed awarding the punishment inflicted on him subject to the approval of the Executive Committee for possession of material and copying Under the rules he was thereupon given an opportunity to show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of receipt of Annexure 1 as to why the proposed punishment for use of unfair n(sic)eans during the examination, be not confirmed. The petitioner in response to the notice Annexure 1, sent a letter dated September 24, 1979, (Annexure 2) in which he demanded copies of certain documents and informations, as according to him the documents and the informations sought were essential and relevant to his defence. It was stated in the letter that the documents and information sought would enable him to reply to Annexure 1. The petitioner inter alia demanded a copy of the report received from the Centre of Examination which is made as a basis of proposed penalty; a copy of the minutes of Result Committee which met to announce the result of the paper in which the petitioner appeared along with result sheet and a copy of the minutes of the Result Committee which met to decide the proposed penalty. In his case on the alleged charges of 'for possession of material and copying'. A copy of Annexure 2 was also sent to the Vice -Chancellor with the request that the Registrar may be directed to provide him the required informations and documents. The petitioner also submitted his representation dated July 27, 1979 (Annexure 3) to the Vice -Chancellor and reference thereof was given by the petitioner in his reply (Annexure 2) to the show cause notice. The petitioner averred that while he was still awaiting the supply of informations and documents to enable him to submit as effective reply -to the show cause notice (Annexure 1), the petitioner received Notification (Annexure 4) dated October 12, 1979, whereby he wan penalised and his present examination was cancelled and was further debarred from appearing in three subsequent semesters for having been found guilty of using unfairmeans in the Examination held on July 21, 1979. The petitioner challenged the Notification (Annexure 4) on the ground that the petitioner was not supplied the report of the invigilator; the report of the Centre Superintendent; the report of the Examiner; and the minutes of the Remit Committee. It was also stated that the Result Committee considered the entire material at the back of tie petitioner. The petitioner's main grievance is that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to present his case and he has been punished in disregard of principles of natural justice.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties Shri N.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him. The petitioner had denied the recovery of any hand -written paper from him possession from the very beginning and when notice Annexure 1 was received he made a demand for supply of documents and informations mentioned in Annexure 2. No reply to that letter was given and without giving any opportunity of being beard, the petitioner was awarded punishment. Shri Mathur placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mahendra Mathur v. University of Udaipur and Ors. 1979 WLN (UC) 196 and in Bharat Vyas v. The University of Udaipur, Udaipur and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587/79, decided on March 12, 1180.