H.S. Sriramakrishna vs Bangalore University and Others

This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group after notice to respondents, is taken up for final hearing by consent of counsel for parties.

The petitioner was a student studying in Acharya Patashala Evening College, Bangalore. The petitioner appeared for I Year B.A., Examination held in the month of April, 1977. He was successful in the said Examination, in all subjects, except English. He joined II Year B.A., course and took the Examination in six papers in April, 1978. In the Examination held for that course he passed in all subjects except in English in the 11-year degree course, as averred by him. He passed II year B.A., in English in the supplementary Examination held in September, 1978 and in November of the same year, the results were declared, by which he completed all the Examinations prescribed for II year B.A., course The petitioner has further averred that he has paid the requisite Examination fee for taking his III year B.A., Examination which was expected to be held at the time of filing of the writ petition in the month of April, 1979, It is stated by the petitioner that on 26-12-1978 he was served with a memo from the Convenor, Malpractices Committee and Deputy Registrar of University of Bangalore, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"You are requested to send your explanation, if any to this office within five daysfrom the date of this memo and also intimate, whether you would like to appear in person before the Malpractices Enquiry Committee or not, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer against your defence and action will be taken as per rules.

The Malpractices Enquiry Committee will meet at 10.00 A.M. on 9-1-1979 at the office of Controller of Examinations (City Office), Mathematics Block, Central College, Bangalore-560 001."

In response to the said memo, the petitioner appeared before the Malpractices Committee and pleaded total ignorance of his complicity in the act of copying by one Sridharamurthy in respect of whom the, examiner had made certain observations to the Malpractices Committee However, after issuing a show cause notice, the petitioner was punished as evidenced by Ext.-J to the petition by notification issued on 13th February 1979, pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed at its meeting held on 27-1-1979. The punishment inflicted was to the effect that the benefit of his success in the II Year B.A. Examination held during May 1978 was denied to him. He was also debarred from the said Examination till October, 1978 and was permitted to appear for II Year B.A. Examination only during April 1979 and onwards.

Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner had approached this court under Art. 226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution for relief, mainly contending, that the order inflicting the punishment on him as indicated in Ext.-J was not only devoid of merit but also, in violation of the Rules of natural justice inasmuch as he was not confronted with any incriminating statement made by any witnesses, particularly, the said student Sridharamurthy who appears to have, pleaded guilty to the charge of copying, before the Malpractices Committee and subject such witnesses for cross-examination by the petitioner.

The other contentions raised in the petition need not be referred to as this petition can be disposed of without reference to them.

Shri S. Vijayashankar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3, has made available to the court the records pertaining to the enquiry held by the Malpractices Committee which is respondent-3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner''s statement is recorded and the petitioner has stated that he had no complicity or knowledge in the matter of Sridharamurthy copying in the Examination of II Year B.A. for the year 1978. On the same sheet, there is an endorsement, apparently made by the Chairman of the Malpractices Committee to the effect:

"The other candidate has admitted that he copied from this student''s answer book, even though it cannot be said that this student was guilty conclusively. He is permitted to take the Examination 1 Plus 1 in April 1979.

From the above it is clear, that though there was a clear doubt about the complicity of the petitioner in the malpractice indulged by the said Sridharamurthy, the Malpractices Committee and thereafter the Syndicate of the University as well, punished the petitioner in the absence of adequate proof.

On this ground alone, the petitioner is liable to succeed and therefore Ext.-J, resolution of the Syndicate giving effect to the recommendation of the Malpractices Committee inflicting punishment on the petitioner is quashed by issue of writ of certiorari, as one without jurisdiction and proper application of mind. All benefits that flow from the quashing of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 13th February, 1979, shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

There will be no order as to costs.