Pradip Kumar Sahoo vs Utkal University and Others

Behera, J.—The petitioner assails the order as per Annexure-7 issued by the Utkal University penalising the petitioner for having adopted

unfair means at the Annual Degree Examination of 1982 by cancelling his examination and debarring him from appearing at any examination prior

to the Annual Degree Examination of the year 1984. It has been stated in the writ application and submitted at the hearing on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner appeared at the Final B. A, (Honours) Examination of the year 1982 conducted by the Utkal University (opposite

party No. 1) which commenced on and from April 15.1982 at the B. J. B. College Centre at Bhubaneswar and had done well in all the papers. In

the evening of April 26, 1982, four lecturers came to the quarters where the petitioner had been residing at Bhubaneswar and searched for the

answer paper of the sixth paper of Economics Honours alleging that the petitioner had removed the said answer paper without submitting the same

after the examination was over. The petitioner was taken by them and produced before the Principal of the B. J. B. College who was the

Superintendent of the Examination Centre and the petitioner told him that he had submitted the answer paper to Mr. Debadatta Mishra, Lecturer in

English, who was the invigilator. The petitioner waited for the result and in July, 1982, learnt from the notice that his result had been withheld. He

made several representations to the concerned authorities for publication of his result as it had been withheld for no fault of his, but in vain.

As per Annexure-4 dt. Oct. 8, 1982, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Examination Disciplinary Committee on Oct. 15, 1982

and he appeared and took the same stand. He had not been asked earlier to show cause and no charges had been levelled against him in any

communication addressed to him. He was asked three questions by the Disciplinary Committee, as averred in para 9 of the writ application, as to

his name, the college from which he had appeared at the examination and as to why his result had been withheld. The petitioner had denied any

knowledge as to why his result had been withheld by the authorities. Although the petitioner had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in

Oct. 1982, nothing was done and in Jan. 1984, the examination in respect of the petitioner was cancelled and he was penalised as per Annexure-

7.

The opposite parties had duly been noticed to appear for admission and hearing of the writ application. The opposite party No. 1 had entered

appearance. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the opposite parties. This matter came up for admission and hearing in the list with the

name of Mr. C.R. Nanda, Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties. No one mentioned about this matter in the first hour yesterday. When the

matter came up for hearing, none appeared for the opposite parties. We sent for Mr. Nanda and he submitted that the brief had been transferred

and his appearance might be ignored. He was not in a position to say as to whom the brief had been transferred. It is in these circumstances that

we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner without any one appearing for the opposite parties and have proceeded to dispose of this writ

application.

No material has been placed before us by the opposite parties with regard to adoption of malpractice by the petitioner. As has been averred in

the writ application and submitted by Mr. Jena for the petitioner, prior to the receipt of Annexure-4 to appear before the Disciplinary Committee

on Oct. 15,1982, the petitioner had received no communication with regard to any charges levelled against him by the invigilator or the

Superintendent of the Examination Centre. In a case of this nature, the person proceeded against must have due notice of the charges levelled

against him and he must be asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for adoption of malpractice. It has been asserted

by the petitioner and there is no denial that this procedure had not been followed. Thus when the petitioner was asked to appear before the

Examination Disciplinary Committee, he did not even know as to what case he was to meet. All that had been stated in Annexure-2 was that the

petitioner was required to be present before the Examination Disciplinary Committee regarding an enquiry into his case. It was not even mentioned

in Annexure-2 as to what the enquiry was about.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of what has been stated above, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has been

penalised as per Annexure-7 without due and proper enquiry and without affording to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of showing cause

and of being heard with regard to any particular and definite allegation made against him. Thus substantial prejudice has been caused to the

petitioner by the course adopted by the opposite parties and there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, a fit case in

which Annexure-7 should be quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner,

In the result, we would allow the writ application and quash Annexure-7 in so far as it relates to the petitioner with a direction to the opposite

party No. 1 (Utkal University) to proceed in accordance with law.

We would like to keep on record that if under the statutes and the rules, it would be permissible for the opposite party No. 1 (Utkal University)

to publish the result of the petitioner, now that Annexure-7 has been quashed, it may do so.

K.P. Mohapatra, J.

I agree.