Balwinder Singh vs Guru Nank Dev University, Amritsar and others

S.S. Grewal, J.—This Writ Petition relates to quashment of order Annexure-P. I dated 8-12-1993 passed by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar whereby petitioner was informed that he had been restrained (disqualified from appearing in any examination for a period of two and two years i.e. total period of two years under each head, concerning his misconduct in using unfair means under Ordinance 10 (a)(h) and (n) read with Ordinance 11 of the University Calendar. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently under Ordinance 20. Prayer was also made to quash the order of the Vice-Chancellor rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, which order was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P. 2.

According to the petitioner, he joined three-years LL.B. Course at Guru Nanak Dev University, Regional Centre, Jalandhar and appeared in the LL.B. examination in the First Year and Session, 1993, on 27-5-1993. It was pleaded that while the petitioner was sitting for his 6th Paper concerning Law of Crimes, a false charge was levelled against him that he used unfair means during the said examination. In response to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Controller of Examination, he appeared before the Standing Committee dealing with the Unfair Means Cases. After considering all the facts of the case the Committee held that no action is to be taken against the petitioner and was directed to contact the Registrar within 15 days of the receipt of letter No. 1123-UMC dated 23-7-1993 (Annexure-P. 3) to get his result declared. The result of the petitioner was declared and he got admission in LL.B. Second Year of the University and deposited his fees on 18-8-1993 and further deposited fees and started attending classes. It was further pleaded that vide letter dated 28-9-1993 the Controller of Examinations sent notice to the petitioner wherein he was asked to appear before the Standing Committee of the University concerning Unfair Means Cases on 12-10-1993 to Show Cause why action should not be taken against him under Ordinances 10(a)(h) and (n) and 11 for using unfair means, i.e. on the same charges on which the petitioner had been absolved by the Standing Committee. Thereafter the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 8-12-1993 whereby he was intimated that he had been restrained /disqualified from appearing in any examination for a period of two years under each head under Ordinances 10(a)(h) and (n) and 11 concerning misconduct in using Unfair Means. He sent legal notice through his counsel to the Vice-Chancellor copy whereof is Annexure-P. 7 for cancellation/withdrawal of the decision of the disqualification.

In the written reply to the legal notice the University intimated that the action taken against the petitioner was in order. The petitioner then filed C.W.P. No. 2499 of 1994 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file appeal/ representation under the Ordinance. The petitioner filed appeal before the Vice-Chancellor which was rejected. It was next pleaded that the case against the petitioner was reopened under Ordinance 20; that the decision in the instant case was taken by the Standing Committee and not by the Vice-Chancellor and the decision of the Standing Committee was without jurisdiction. It was also pleaded that in the present case that neither any incriminating papers were got signed from him, nor there was any justification for initiation of appeal by the Branch, Nor there was any necessity for the Vice-Chancellor to refer the case to the Standing Committee for reconsideration.

In its reply the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 besides raising preliminary objections admitted that the petitioner appeared before the Unfair Means Committee. The said Committee chose to exanerate him on the ground that he was not supplied with a Second Answer Book after having been caught using Unfair Means, that the said Committee erroneously overlooked the fact that the petitioner had refused to have the Second Answer Book. The appeal was then filed under Ordinance 20 against the decision of Standing Committee and the Vice Chancellor directed the Standing Committee to reconsider the whole case. The petitioner was then called for second time by the Vice-Chancellor and he admitted before the said Committee that he was offered Second Answer Book but he refused to accept the same, ft was further pleaded that from the report/of the Flying Squad duly signed by the Centre Superintendent as well as the fact that the slip had been seized by the members of the Flying Squad from the petitioner who was attempting to copy from the same, his case fell within Ordinance 10 (a)(h) and (n) read with Ordinance 11 of the University Calendar relating to Unfair Means Cases. The Unfair Means Committee sent back the case to the Vice-Chancellor after holding that the petitioner was guilty under the said Ordinances. On 22-11-1993 the Vice-Chancellor ordered that the petitioner should be disqualified for a period of two years. On merits it was admitted that by depositing fee or its acceptance by the Administrative Branch, no right accrues to the petitioner if he is otherwise found ineligible by the Examination Branch. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was duly heard by the Standing Committee before taking its decision and that the petitioner has been rightly disqualified for the use of Unfair Means for a period of two years. One hand written slip was recovered from under the answer book by Shri K. S. Khurana, member of the Flying Squad. The slip contained direct solution to question No. IX set in the question paper and the candidate had also copied from the said slip.

In the replication the petitioner denied the averments made in the Written Statement and reiterated those in the petition.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was first exonerated by the Standing Committee and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the same charge by the Unfair Means Committee were illegal. After the matter was brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 20, he directed the Committee to reconsider the whole case. Then the petitioner appeared before the Committee in compliance of the Show Cause Notice and admitted that he was offered the second answer book and he refused, to accept the same. The petitioner also admitted that he was found in possession of one hand-written slip and had copied answer to quest ion No. IX from incriminating material. In view of the aforesaid admission the Committee rightly concluded that the candidate had in his possession incriminating material and had used it in copying answer to question No. IX. The said admission supports the report of the Flying Squad which is corroborated by the Supervisory Stuff and the Centre Superintendent. Report of the Committee is rightly based on admission of the petitioner and the Committee rightly gave findings that the candidate (present petitioner) had violated Ordinance 10(a)(h) and (n) read with Ordinance 11 and that the case be placed before the Vice-Chancellor for taking decision. On the basis of the said report ultimately the Vice-Chancellor on 22-11-1993 ordered the petitioner to be disqualified for a period of two years. In view of the circumstances the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently no action could be taken against the petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor or by Committee or that there has been no violation of Ordinance 10(a)(h) and (n) read with Ordinance 11 or that the procedure adopted in this case was unjust, illegal or violative of the principles of natural justice is hardly tenable,

Faced with this situation it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the bais of the single Bench authority of this Court in Manisha Sharma v. Guru Nanak University 1994 (2) RSJ 573, that the case of the present petitioner was covered under clause 8 of Chapter II of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, whereby, the petitioner would not forfeit her right to appear in the rest of the examination in subsequent papers and more deterrent punishment awarded restraining/ disqualifying from, appearing in any examination of the University for a period of two years, was not justified,

For easy reference clause 8 is reproduced as under :--

"The answer-book in which the use of unfair means is alleged shall be seized by the Superintendent and the candidate concerned shall be permitted to answer the remaining part of the question paper on a separate answer book. The Superintendent shall forward both the answer books, along with his report in form EC-20, to the Registrar. The candidate snail not forfeit his right to appear in the rest of the examination in subsequent papers."

A careful perusal of clause 8 referred to above clearly shows that after the seizure of the answer book in which unfair means is alleged, the candidate shall be permitted to answer remaining part of the question paper on a separate answer book. Apart from that it is also mentioned that the candidate would not forfeit his right to appear in the rest of the examination in subsequent papers. Clause 8 referred to above clearly covers the case before any further enquiry is conducted against such candidate by competent authority or any punishment is awarded or any other action is taken against such candidate concerning misconduct on his part in using unfair means in the University examination. Clause 8 only protects the right of a candidate who is alleged to have used unfair means to answer remaining questions in the paper in a separate answer book and such candidate would also be permitted to take rest of the papers concerning the said examination. In our view clause 8 does not create any legal bar to hold further enquiry or action by the Vice-Chancellor, or by other competent authority against such candidate concerning his misconduct in resorting to Unfair Means in the examination.

The contrary view taken in Manisha Sharma''s case (supra) to the effect that if her case was covered under clause 8 then the respondents cannot apply a clause which provides for far more deterrent punishment only on the ground that petitioner did not opt for the procedure that was prescribed under clause 8, with all respect to the learned single Judge who decided the said case, cannot be legally sustained. Aforesaid view taken in Manisha Sharma''s case (supra) is hereby overruled.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that clause 8 referred to above does not in any manner debar the Vice-Chancellor or other competent authority subsequently to conduct enquiry regarding allegations of misconduct against the petitioner that he had used the unfair means in the examination or for awarding punishment or for taking any other appropriate action after charge of misconduct is duly proved against the petitioner. The action against the petitioner in the instant case was fully justified and no interference is called for in this case.

We do not find any merit in this petition and the same in hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.