Kamlesh Kumari vs The Punjab University

R.P. Khosla, J.—This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is from judgment dated 22nd April, 1934, of P.C. Pandit J., in Civil Writ No. 1830 of 1963.

The facts were these Kamlesh Kumari an examinee bearing Roll No. 75925 appeared in the Matriculation Examination of the Punjab University convened in March 1963 from Jaitu (District Bhatinda) centre. For employing unfair means in the said examination relating to English Paper ''A'' she was disqualified by the Punjab University debarring her from appearing in the Matriculation Examination for two years (1963 and 1964). Kamlesh Kumari, aggrieved as she was moved this Court questioning the said order of the Punjab University. The challenge was grounded on the contention that rules of natural justice had been violated. From the return filed in the civil writ petition it appears that the impugned order had been proposed after some sort of enquiry held under the auspices of the Standing Committee of the Punjab University. Kamlesh Kumari had been summoned and appeared on 15th July 1963 before the Deputy Registrar Examinations She was asked to answer the questionnaire, annexure "R. 1" of return. Prior to her appearance on 24th of June 1963 report of the Head Examiner, which formed annexure "R 6" to the return, had also been obtained. Subsequent to that on 26th of July 1963 report of an expert (annexure R 7) appended to the return had also been obtained. The grievance was that this subsequent report "R 7" had not been made known to the petitioner and she had been given no opportunity to meet the same despite the fact that in coming to the final conclusions the said report "R. 7" had been along with other material made the basis of the respondent''s order disqualifying her.

By the impugned judgment dated 22nd April 1984 the learned Single Judge had disposed of civil writ petition No. 1830 of 1963 and three others (Nos. 1831 to 1833 of 1963). The said writ petitions were dismissed principally on the basis of decision of the learned Single Judge in a prior civil writ petition (No. 1849 of 1963) and the Bench decision of this Court in Karamjit Kaur v. The Punjab University (1964) 65 P.L.R. 674, to which decision My Lord Mehar Singh J. was also a party.

That case appears to be distinguishable. Reading of body of the Judgment in the said case indicates that the challenge had not been raised in the manner as in the instant case. Report of the expert appears not to have been pressed into service. It is well settled that the person to be condemned ought to be given adequate opportunity to meet the accusations: the evidence forming part of the charge and to be used against accused ought to be disclosed so that full opportunity is afforded to deal with the same, otherwise the proceedings in enquiry offend the principles of the rule of natural justice. Reference in this behalf is called to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kapur v. The Punjab University AIR 1955 P&H 120 : (1965) 67 P.L.R. 101 (F.B.).

Admittedly, in the instant case report of the Expert "R. 7" dated 26th July 1933 had not been made known to the examinee and at no stage was she able to meet the same. The decision in Suresh Kumar v. The Punjab University (1965) 67 P.L.R. 693, Letters Patent Appeal from this very judgment now impugned of the learned Single Judge (Pandit, J.) relating to another examine from the same centre and examination is directly in point. Grover J., speaking for the Court observed:

* *

the more important question which has arisen is whether the Standing Committee was justified in relying on the report of the expert which was prejudicial to the petitioner, without giving any indication to him of the existence of such a report. No such indication could be given at the time the questionnaire was framed or was answered because it is common ground that the opinion of the expert had not been obtained till then and that it was obtained subsequently. After the expert''s report had come, no further intimation was sent to the petitioner about it.

Pronouncing upon the decision of the Standing Committee this is what the learned Judge said:

It is apparent from it that the report of the expert was relied on mostly for giving a decision that the petitioner had been guilty of the use of unfair means. It is admitted that the petitioner at no stage was informed of the existence of such a report which was highly prejudicial to him.

* *.

The impugned order in the writ petition, subject-matter of the said Letters Patent Appeal, in consequence, was set aside. The decision in Suresh Kumar''s case is of a binding authority as far as this Bench is concerned, particularly because it was on the same facts, same order was impugned and points urged and disposed of were the same as in the instant case.

We have thus for all these reasons no hesitation in finding the judgment of the learned Single Judge challenged in the present proceedings cannot sustain. The same is accordingly set aside.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Punjab University impugned in Civil Writ No. 1830 of 1963 is quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Mehar Singh, J.

I agree.