Jagmohan Singh vs The Punjab University

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Jagmohan Singh challenging the order dated 29th of November, 1967 passed by the Punjab University, respondent No. 1, disqualifying him for 1967 and 1968 (four sessions) under Regulation 12 (c) at page 106 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1966, Volume I.

According to the petitioner, he appeared in the Higher Secondary Part II Examination held in March, 1967. On 29th of March, 1967, when he was taking the examination in Hindi paper, at about 4.30 p.m., the supervisor came near his seat. There a printed paper was lying on the floor and he picked it up. He asked the petitioner whether the said paper belonged to him. The petitioner replied that it had been picked up from the floor by the supervisor and the petitioner was ignorant about it and did not know to whom it belonged. By that time, the petitioner had completed his paper. The supervisor called the Deputy Superintendent of the Centre, who also asked the petitioner as to whether the said paper was recovered from his hand. The petitioner maintained that it was recovered from the floor and that he could enquire from the students who were sitting around him. The supervisor and the Deputy Superintendent then took the petitioner to the Superintendent of the Centre, to whom also the petitioner said that he was innocent. At that time, one examinee Narinder Singh by name and two advocates. Mr. Amarjit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh who had come to see Narinder Singh, had heard the petitioner crying and pleading his innocence. The said Advocates came to the Superintendent and told him that as the paper was alleged to have been found on the floor, the petitioner should not be held guilty. The Superintendent, however, refused to investigate the matter or accept the statement of the petitioner, but insisted that the petitioner should give in writing that the printed leaf was recovered from him. He refused to give such a statement as that was not true. After that the petitioner came away and took the rest of the examination. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Registrar of the University asking him to appear before him on 28th of June, 1967 in connection with the case of unfair means that was pending against him. The petitioner reached the University office on the appointed day and there he was given a questionnaire to answer. In the said questionnaire, the allegations made against the petitioner were that a printed leaf of a book was recovered from him. It was also suggested that he had made use of the said incriminating material. It was at that time that the petitioner came to know that the alleged printed leaf was from a Hindi book and dealt with the life of ''Kabir''. The petitioner had also answered the question relating to the life of ''Kabir'', but the same had been written by him without any help from the printed leaf of the book or from any other paper. The petitioner also filed, along with the questionnaire, the affidavits of 8 examines who were sitting in the examination hall near the petitioner. He also produced the affidavits of two Advocates who were present at the time when he was talking to the Superintendent of the Centre. The petitioner had also stated that he desired to be heard by Standing Committee. Subsequently, he was called before the Standing Committee where he appeared and made his statement. There he said that the allegation that the paper was recovered from his hand was incorrect and also maintained that the two Advocates had also requested the Superintendent to make a full enquiry about the matter and that the Superintendent had stated that it did not matter whether the paper was recovered from the petitioner''s hand or from the floor. The petitioner also took with him the persons who had given the affidavits and produced them before the Standing Committee as witnesses. All those students, who had taken the examination in the same Centre, maintained that the paper was recovered by the supervisor from the floor and not from the hand of the petitioner. The Advocates also stated that they were present when the petitioner was taken before the Superintendent to whom the petitioner was saying that the paper was picked up from the floor by the supervisor. Neither the Superintendent nor any member of the supervisory staff was present before the Standing Committee. None of them was examined by the Standing Committee and, consequently, the question of cross-examining them by the petitioner did not arise. Subsequently, the petitioner received the impugned order. That led to the filing of the present writ petition.

In the return filed by the Registrar of the Punjab University, it was stated that the petitioner was found in possession of a printed leaf in Hindi on the lives of ''Kabir'' and ''Surdas''. The Supervisor recovered that paper from the hand of the petitioner who, however, falsely took up the plea that the paper was lying on the floor. The Supervisor then brought the matter to the notice of the Deputy Superintendent of the examination centre. The petitioner was then taken to the Superintendent the petitioner, however, refused to given any statement. According to the Superintendent, the two Advocates, Mr. Amarjit Singh and Mr. Bakhtawar Singh who were outside the examination hall, unnecessarily tried to interfere at a later stage without knowing the real facts. The conduct of the petitioner in taking a false stand and refusing to give the statement was highly improper particularly when he was caught red handed and in mala fide possession of the material by the supervisory staff. The incriminating printed paper related to the subject of the examination on that day. The examination hall had been searched by the members of the supervisory staff before the commencement of the examination on 29th of March 1967 and no paper or note book or copies, etc, relating to the subject of the examination for the day, was found anywhere in or near the said hall. Besides, instructions were read out to all the candidates by the Superintendent before the commencement of the examination that they should not have any paper, note book or any other helpful material relating to the subject of the examination of the day in their possession. The examination was being held from 2-00 to 5-00 p.m. and the incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner at about 4.30 p. m. A reference to the answer book of the petitioner would show that only a few lines were written by him in respect of the last question (No. 3) attempted by him, after he had answered the question regarding the life of ''Kabir''. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Registrar of the University on 28th June, 1957, where he was given an elaborate questionnaire and afforded full opportunity to explain his position. He had come fully prepared and had brought with him affidavits of several students and of the two advocates in support of his plea. Those affidavits were attested by the Oath Commissioner on 27th June, 1967 and were filed by the petitioner in his defense. A reference to the answer book would show that the petitioner might have copied some words from the printed book, while answering the question regarding the life of ''Kabir''. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Standing Committee which recorded the statements of the petitioner and the witnesses produced by him. The Committee then went through the entire evidence and material on the record before coming to the impugned decision. The petitioner never asked that the Superintendent or the supervisory staff be called for cross-examination. He had, however, been duly shown the entire record including the report of the Superintendent and the statements of the supervisory staff and all other material available on the record and full opportunity had been given to him to explain the allegations made against him. If the petitioner wanted to cross-examine the supervisory staff, he could have asked for it.

The main argument raised by the Learned Counsel was that on the facts found against the petitioner, he could not be held guilty under Regulation 12 (c), inasmuch as it could not be said that the possession of the incriminating material was mala fide. At the utmost, his case would be covered by Regulation 12 (b), because the petitioner was found in possession of a leaf from the printed book and that possession of his was innocent and not mala fide. The contention was that a charge both under Regulations 12(c) and 13(b) had been leveled against the petitioner. In the questionnaire also, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had made use of the incriminating material. The paper recovered contained the lives of ''Kabir'' and ''Surdas''. The petitioner had also attempted the question on the life of ''Kabir'' in his answerbook, but since he was not found guilty under Regulation 13(b), it has to be held that he had not made use of that paper. Had the possession of the incriminating material been mala fide, it was, according to the Learned Counsel, inevitable that he would have made use of it when he was attempting the question on the life of ''Kabir''. The fact that he did not do so would show that his possession was not mala fide and he had not taken that paper with him with the idea of making use of it in the examination hall. More possession of an incriminating material was not enough to prove the charge under Regulation 12(c) and the University had to go further and show that the said possession was mala fide. The alleged paper was recovered from the petitioner at 4.30 p.m. and the examination time was from 2 to 5 p.m. If his possession was mala fide, it was unbelievable that he should not have made use of it by that time. The petitioner had attempted the question on the life of ''Kabir'' and it could, therefore, not be said that he could still make use of it during the half hour that remained for the examination time to be over. Besides, the petitioner had only written a few lines regarding some other question, after attempting the question on the life of ''Kabir'' and had then finished his paper.

Regulations 12(b) and (c) are in these terms:

12(b) If a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books or notes due to inadvertence but which papers, books or notes could be of assistance to him he may be debarred from passing in that paper as a disciplinary measure without any implication of moral turpitude.

(c) If his possession of such papers, books or notes is found to be mala fide, he shall be disqualified for two years including that in which he was found guilty if he is a candidate for an examination held once a year or for four examinations including that in which he was found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year.

It would be seen that clause (b) provides for the case of a candidate who is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books or notes which could be of assistance to him in the examination, but which he had taken with him inadvertently. Clause (c) would, however, be attracted, if the possession of such papers, books or notes was mala fide. Clause (b) talks of innocent possession, while (c) of mala fide possession, that is to say, the candidate had taken those papers, etc. with the intention of using the material in the examination. Bearing this distinction in mind, let us see whether the case of the petitioner was covered by Regulation 12(b) or 12(c).

I may at once state that certain findings of fact have been given by the Standing Committee. They are based on evidence and, consequently, are not open to challenge in writ proceedings. It is needless to point out that under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not act as a court of appeal, where those findings could have been reversed if not warranted by the evidence produced on the record. It is precisely for that reason that the Learned Counsel for the petitioner based his argument on the facts found by the Standing Committee. Those are-

(1) that before the commencement of the examination it was announced by the Superintendent of the Centre in the examination hall that if any candidate had in his possession any notes, papers, books, etc. pertaining to the subject of the examination, he should not keep the same with him;

(2) at about 4.30 p.m. just half an hour before the examination time was to be over, the incriminating paper was recovered from the hand of the petitioner;

(3) the incriminating paper related to the subject of examination on that day and could be of assistance to him; and

(4) that the defense taken by the petitioner that the said paper was not recovered from him, but was lying on the floor near his seat was false.

To them, can be added the fact that at no stage either when the petitioner was given the questionnaire and was being examined by the Assistant Registrar or before the Standing Committee, he had taken the plea that the incriminating paper had come in his possession due to inadvertence. On these facts, could it be held that the possession of the incriminating paper by the petitioner was innocent ? Could it be said that the paper had come into the possession of the petitioner due to inadvertence ? The mere fact that the incriminating paper was recovered from the hand of the petitioner would show that the same had not come into his possession due to inadvertence. If the paper had been recovered from his pocket, then perhaps it could be said that he had brought that with him by inadvertence and his possession of the same was innocent. To prove that the possession was mala fide, it is not necessary to establish that the examinee had actually made use of the said paper. If he had brought the same with the intention of making use of it, that was sufficient to make the possession mala fide. All that is necessary to be shown is that the incriminating material could be of assistance to him in the examination and he had brought the same not by inadvertence but knowingly and wilfully. If he had made use of it, then he would be guilty under Regulation 13(b), but if he did not use it, then the case would be covered by Regulation 12(c). In the instant case the Standing Committee had come to the conclusion, after going into all the facts in a very detailed manner, that the possession of the incriminating paper by the petitioner was clearly mala fide. No case has been made out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner for my taking a different view than the one adopted by the Standing Committee.

It was held in a bench decision of this Court in Karamjit Kaur v. The Punjab University (1964) 66 P.L.R. 674, that the candidate must be informed of the charge and an adequate opportunity should be given to him to defend himself. In case such an opportunity had been given and there was some material before the prescribed authority about the use of unfair means and the prescribed authority accepted that material and was not actuated by any postile animus, this Court, under Article 226, would not interfere with decision of the aforesaid authority even if the court disagreed with the conclusion of the authority. No allegation of hostile animus against any member of the supervisory staff was made in the instant case. There was material before the Standing Committee to come to the impugned decision. That being so and in the circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference with the impugned order, had been made out.

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed There will, however, be no order as to costs.