Dimple Soba and others vs Guru Nanak Dev University

The petitioners have impugned the order of the Standing Committee disqualifying them from appearing in any University examination of the Guru Nanak Dev University for a period of one year under Ordinance 11.1(b) of the Ordinance contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986, in this writ petition.

The petitioners appeared in the paper of Cost-Accounting Bachelor of Commerce Part-I examination on April 25, 1989 at Centre No. 23 Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jatandhar. The flying squad of the University headed by Dr. Madanjit Kaur visited the said centre and found that the candidates were openly using unfair means during the course of examination. She recovered photostat papers from the examination hall and submitted her detailed report along with the recovered material to the University, who in turn got the answer sheets of all the examinees scrutinized from the subject expert. The subject expert gave report that the examinees including the petitioners had copied answers to question No. 6(b)/7(b) from the incriminating photostat material recovered from the examination hall. On the basis 01 this report, charge against the petitioners was framed under Ordinance 10(j) and (h) read with Ordinance 11 and Ordinance 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Vol.II, 1986. The petitioners were served with notices and were called upon to appear before the Standing Committee. The petitioners appeared before the Standing Committee. They were afforded adequate opportunity to present their defence. The Standing Committee ultimately took the decision which has been impugned in the Writ Petition. The principal ground of attack is that there was no material before the Standing Committee to come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioners stood proved.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that there was no material with the Standing Committee to record a finding that the petitioners had received help or attempted to receive help for answering the question paper in the subject of Cost-Accounting from any source in any manner.

The Standing Committee after considering the report of the subject expert and examining the answer sheets found that the answer to question No. 6(b) tallied with the answer of the incriminating material which was recovered from the examination hall by Dr. Madanjit Kaur, head of the flying squad. The Standing Committee on perusing the answer book found that answer to question No. 7(b) of candidate appearing under Roll No. 832 (petitioner No. 3) did not tally with the incriminating material but the answer to question No. 6(b) perfectly tallied with the answer on the incriminating material. It thus cannot be said that the decision of the Standing Committee is based on on evidence. The Standing Committee had the report of the subject expert before it and in addition it also took pains to verify whether the answer to question No. 6(b) of the paper in Cost Accounting tallied with the incriminating material and found that it so tallied. The petitioners had full opportunity to present their case and they were even afforded personal hearing by the Standing Committee. The only other question which requires consideration is whether the charge against the petitioners under Ordinance 10(h)(j) of the Ordinances as contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 stands proved or not. The same reads thus :--

"10.(h)(i) copying or attempting to copy from the objectionable material found in his possession; or

(ii) copying or attempting to copy from another candidate; or

(iii) assisting another candidate to copy from the objectionable material in his possession or from his answer-book;

(j) receiving help or attempting to receive help for answering the question paper from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall."

The evidence brought on record before the Standing Committee does not establish that the petitioners were found copying or attempting to copy from the objectionable material found in their possession or were copying or attempting to copy from another candidate or were assisting the other candidate to copy from the objectionable material in their possession or from their answer books and the charge under Ordinance 10(h) of the Ordinances of Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 is not proved. However, the charge under Ordinance 10(j) of the Ordinances of Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 stands fully proved. The incriminating material (photostat papers) which was recovered from the examination hall contained answers to various questions and the answer to question No. 6(b) of the answer sheets of the petitioners fully tallied with the answer given in the incriminating material. The charge under Ordinance 10(j) of the Ordinances of Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 stood fully proved. Under Ordinance 11(1)(b) of the Ordinances contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II, 1986, a candidate who is found guilty for offences under Ordinance 10(j) of the Ordinances could be disqualified for a period of not less than two years. In the instant case, the Standing Committee has found that the charge against the petitioners under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 11 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 stood proved and it also found that the charge under Ordinance 10(h) read with Ordinance 11 of the Ordinances contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 was also proved and under both these charges the petitioners were disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year under each count and the disqualification was to run concurrently. The decision of the Standing Committee in so far as it holds the petitioners guilty under Ordinance 10(h) read with Ordinance 11 of the Ordinances as contained in Guru Nanak Dev-University Calendar volume II 1986 cannot be sustained. The lisqualification under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 11.1 of the Ordinances as contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 is upheld. The petitioners were disqualfied from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year under both these heads but the disqualification was to run concurrently. It will not make any difference with regard to the puni hment since I have upheld the decision of the Standing Committee in so far as it had found that the charge under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 11 of the Ordinances contained in Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II 1986 stood proved.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.