Anwar Alam vs Jamia Milia Islamia and Others

Suresh Kait, J.

W.P. (C) 7603/2012

Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of direction against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to send the original questioned document (Annexure P-2) dated 10.12.2011 along with past admitted handwriting samples of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to the Government Examiner for his opinion. Further, seeking direction to the Enquiry Officer that he should not be directed to file his arguments in the pending enquiry proceedings, unless he received a copy of the expert opinion of the Handwriting Expert. It is stated in the petition that after completion of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner moved an application dated 25.10.2012 requesting verification of the documents, which reads as under:-

Subject: Request for Verification of the following Documents by the Government Forensic Department/Lab including Handwriting Expert.

Dear Sir

In the interest of justice and for the fair and impartial conduct of inquiry I would like to request you that following documents as listed below may kindly be sent to Government forensic laboratory for the purpose of authentication and verification:-

The tampered invigilation duty sheet of 10.12.2011.

The tampered attendance sheet of 10.12.2011 including the signature of Versha Tomar.

The complain letter and letter of four faculty members for the purpose of verification whether they have been printed from the same printer.

However, the aforesaid application was rejected by Inquiry Officer Mr. B.L. Garg/respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 30.11.2012, which reads as follows:-

Written synopsis have been filed by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the University. Copy supplied. The Charged Officer has moved an application with reference to his previous application that the attendance/invigilation sheet should be sent for forensic examination. Since both the parties have been allowed to lead their entire evidence including/about the aforesaid documents, the question of sending the same for forensic examination does not arise. Accordingly, the request is rejected. Now the matter is adjourned for submitting written arguments by the Charged Officer, if any, on 8th December 2012 at 10.30 a.m.

Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the instant petition is premature as the petitioner is given time to file written synopsis in the inquiry proceedings and he may take all the objections in his written synopsis and the same shall be considered by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, if on the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority takes any punitive action, then the petitioner will have the liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

After hearing counsel for the parties, it is emerged that the charge against the petitioner is that he has forged the attendance sheet, as mentioned above and to this effect one Ms. Tazeen Iqbal Rizvi has filed her affidavit stating therein that on 13.12.2011, she saw a student, Ms. Versha Tomar sitting in the room of the petitioner and writing something. Then the petitioner asked her about what should be done in regard to a ''cutting'' (which was done by him) on the Attendance Sheet of the Master of Philosophy, Ist Semester examination held on 10.12.2011 of the course of ''Government and Politics in West Asia''. She simply told him that every such cutting requires a counter signature.

On perusal of the aforesaid affidavit and charge, it reveals that allegations of cutting are on the petitioner.

This Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is premature at this stage. Let the petitioner file his written synopsis taking all the objections before the Inquiry Officer, who shall consider the same.

I here make it clear that if the Inquiry Officer while concluding the inquiry come to the conclusion that it is the petitioner who made the cutting in the attendance sheet, then in that case, the petitioner may challenge the same at that very stage. If otherwise, the disciplinary authority may proceed further. In view of the above observations, the instant petition is disposed of.

CM No. 19296/2012 (for stay)

With the disposal of the main petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.