SM HASAN FARUQI Vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule Nisi was issued at the instance of the petitioners SM Hasan Faruqi and 8 others calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order of respondent No. 1 under ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....(Annexure C) should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

(2.) The short facts of the petitioner's case are, that they were regular students of Patuakhali Government College, who appeared for Honours examination from the Department of Management in the examination held in the year 2000 under the National University. From the declaration of results it was found that they were unsuccessful in one paper namely Comprehensive but ultimately they were allowed to sit for "Referred" examination in the above subject held on 18-10-2002. The result of the said examination of the petitioners was kept withheld without showing any cause whatsoever. After a long slumber of months a notice of "show cause" was served upon the petitioners under Memo No. ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....issued by the respondent No. 2 wherein it was alleged that the petitioners said to have slipped the answer scripts outside the examination hall, got the answer scripts written from outside by different hand and got those attached with the answer scripts. The petitioners were asked to submit their explanation within 10 days and accordingly, the petitioners submitted written explanations stating those allegations were false and baseless. The notice of show cause and reply to the notices have been marked as (Annexure-A & B series). That the petitioners also submitted representation to the principal of the college alleging that the petitioners have committed no offence as alleged in the notice of show cause. After a long gap of over 8 months, the respondent No. 1 by Notification under Memo No. ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED].... had intimated the petitioners that the Examination Disciplinary Committee upon careful scrutiny of their explanations had found the petitioners guilty for the offence and had cancelled the result of the examination held in year 2000 and also debarred them from sitting for the examination for coming 3 academic years. That Notification is marked as Annexure-C. It is stated that while the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order of punishment he did not take into account the human aspectthe effect upon the future careers of the petitioners. It is stated that the impugned order of punishment has touched the right of the petitioners granted under Articles 27, 31 and 35 of our Constitution, since they have been deprived of being heard before awarding the alleged punishment. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners served notice of Demand of Justice upon the respondents but with no response. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied thereby, the petitioner obtained this Rule.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed an affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 24-7-2004 denying all the material allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that when the answer scripts reached to the University then those were examined by the authority and found that the petitioners changed the answer scripts except the cover pages by adopting unfair means in the said examination. Thereafter, the Controller of Examinations of the National University duly issued a "Kaifiat patra" to every petitioner (Annexure-A series of the writ petition) mentioning the specific allegation against the petitioners contained therein (Ta) asking them to show cause why the disciplinary action or punishment shall not be taken against the petitioners for their illegal anti-disciplinary activities and also asked them to give reply within 10 (ten) days from the date of issuance of "Kaifiat Patra". The petitioner's submitted explanations but those were found unsatisfactory by the authority and the materials of allegations were placed before the disciplinary committee for its examination and opinion. The Committee observed that the petitioners adopted unfair means in the examination in the way that they either changed their answer scripts or the extra sheets written from outside were annexed to it. Considering all the aspects, the University Authority found the petitioners guilty for the offence and cancelled the results of the examination of Honours Part-3 of 2000 and debarred them from appearing in the further examination for the years 2001,2002 and 2003 (Annexure-3). The petitioners committed offence under section 29(10)(ta) as well as under section 11 (ta) of the Examination Conducting Rules. In this respect, the sections 29(10)(ta) and 11 (ta) of the Regulations of the National University, 1999 specifically provides that....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED].... That the respondents have no personal interest or ill-motive against the petitioners rather, they are their students like other ones and, as such, the Rule having no substance is liable to be discharged.