Rai Singh Chourasiya vs State of M.P.

They are heard.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 22/7/2014 ( Annexure P/1) passed by the Dean, GR Medical College, Gwalior by which the petitioner was informed that the College has taken a decision to rusticate the petitioner.

Petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category. He appeared in the Pre Medical Test which was held in the year 2010 for admission in MBBS course. He received 170 marks out of 200. He was declared selected and after counselling he was allotted a seat in GR Medical College, Gwalior. Petitioner got admission in the college in July, 2010. Since then he had been pursuing his studies in MBBS course.

Against the petitioner, an FIR was lodged that he got admission in MBBS course by illegal means; somebody else appeared in the entrance examination on behalf of the petitioner. On the basis of the FIR, a case at Crime No. 49/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and section 3/4 of the Pariksha Adhiniyam has been registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior.

A High Power Committee was constituted by the State to consider the allegations levied against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11/4/2012. Petitioner submitted his reply and documents before the Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Committee, order of rustication ( Annexure P/1) has been passed against the petitioner. It is mentioned in the order that vide show cause notice dated 11/4/2012 petitioner was directed to appear before the Action Committee and produce the documents. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Action Committee nor produced any document. The petitioner was arrested by the Police on 10/6/2014. Subsequently, he was released on bail. The committee further observed that as per enquiry report submitted by the Medical College, prima facie it was found that the photograph which was affixed by the petitioner on PMT Admit Card (TAC) was different than the photograph which was affixed by the petitioner in the attestation form at the time of admission, hence, there was mismatch of photograph. The committee considered the facts and order of rustication has been passed.

Similar point has been considered by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petitions 3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 5451/2014, 6015/2014, 8088/2014, 8120/2014, 8399/2014, 8411/2014, 8469/2014, 8534/2014, 8535/2014, 8540/2014, 8757/2014, 10360/2014, 10371/2014, 10602/2014, 10698/2014, 10700/2014, 11571/2014, 11742/2014, 11946/2014, 11955/2014, 12137/2014, 12623/2014, 12767/2014, 13283/2014, 13380/2014, 13587/2014, 14026/2014, 14119/2014, 14196/2014, 16281/2014 and 16476/2014. This Court quashed the order with certain observations and liberty. The Court passed the following order :

" 01.12.2014

W.P. Nos.3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 5451/2014, 6015/2014, 10698/2014, 13587/2014, 16281/2014 & 16476/2014

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.3983/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 6015/2014 & 10698/2014.

Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 6232/2013.

Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5451/2014, 16281/2014 & 16476/2014.

Shri M.P. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 13587/2014.

Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the Professional Examination Board.

These writ petitions involve identical issues and arise out of the common order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Medical College, Jabalpur'').

The background facts leading to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test Examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board in the year 2008 and 2009 and were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted in the Medical College, Jabalpur. The petitioners were served with show-cause notices by which the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them alongwith the on-line application forms submitted for appearing in the PMT Examination. The petitioners, on receipt of the aforesaid notices, informed the Dean of the Medical College, Jabalpur that they are not in possession of photographs as demanded vide show- cause notices. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the admissions of the petitioners to MBBS Course were cancelled on the ground that their photographs annexed with mark sheets issued by Professional Examination Board are not matching with the photographs affixed on the documents submitted at the time of taking admission in MBBS Course. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the show-cause notices, pointed out that the petitioners were asked to submit their photographs annexed with the application form submitted by them at the time of appearing in PMT Examination. However, on their inability to supply the photographs, the impugned order has been passed. It was further submitted that the documents referred to in the impugned order, inter alia, documents received by the college from Professional Examination Board such as the application forms submitted by the petitioners at the time of appearing in the PMT Examination, were not supplied to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order. However, learned Government Advocate was unable to refute the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that the documents in question which were made the foundation of the impugned order, were not made available to the petitioners.

We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that notice must mention the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken. [See Thahira Haris etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others, . The Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer, (Pwd), Ernakulam and Others, has held that if notices mention one ground but the action has taken on some other ground, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (Now known as Raymond Ltd.) and Another Vs. Director General (Investigation and Registration) and Another, , it has been held that if the material on which an adverse action is taken against a person, is not mentioned in the notice, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. It is equally well settled in law that adverse material on which reliance is placed by an Authority has to be supplied, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. [See: Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, .

In these cases, by the show-cause notices, the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them along with the on-line application forms for appearing in the PMT Examination. However, admissions of the petitioners to MBBS Course were cancelled on the ground that the photographs annexed with the mark sheet issued by the Professional are not matching with the photographs annexed on the documents submitted at the time of taking admission in the MBBS Course. In other words, the show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners on one ground and the action has been taken against them on another ground about which neither notice was given to the petitioners nor the documents in possession of the college presumably obtained/received from Professional Examination Board were furnished to the petitioners. In fact, the documents submitted by the petitioners at the time of taking admission in the MBBS Course and the photographs annexed by them along with the on-line application forms submitted by them while appearing in the PMT Examination were not supplied to them.

For the aforementioned reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

The alleged irregularity of affixing different photographs on the on-line application forms has been committed during the examination which concerns the process of examination. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 37 and 41 of the judgment in the case of Pratibha Singh Ku. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, , the Professional Examination Board alone is competent authority to take action against the petitioners, in that behalf. This decision has attained finality consequent to the order dated 8.8.2014 by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 18791-18792.

In the result, the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to Professional Examination Board as well as to the concerned College to commence an independent inquiry against the petitioners by supplying all the documents on which reliance is placed. We hope and trust that Professional Examination Board/Deans of respective Medical Colleges will commence the proposed inquiry against the concerned petitioners in the light of liberty given in this order and conclude that inquiry expeditiously preferably not later than six weeks from today. The concerned petitioners must extend full cooperation for conclusion of that inquiry, if opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned petitioners during the inquiry. We may not be understood to have said that the petitioners are entitled for personal hearing during such inquiry. That is a matter to be considered by the Inquiring Authority in the light of the observations in the decision of this Court in similar cases on the subject matter. It would be open to the petitioners to submit representations to the Competent Authority of the College for permission to attend the classes. The said Authority shall examine the representations of the petitioners and shall deal with it on merits in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of."

In the present case also, copy of the enquiry report submitted by the College Committee in which it was held that there was mismatch of photograph which was affixed by the petitioner in PMT Admit Card and the photograph which was affixed by the petitioner in attestation form at the time of admission was not supplied to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to produce documents in regard to impersonation. However, because the petitioner was in custody, hence, he could not appear before the Committee.

Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Principal Seat in the cases mentioned herein above.

Consequently, impugned order dated 22/7/2014 passed by the Dean, GR Medical College, Gwalior (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The Professional Examination Board and the concerned College are granted liberty to commence an independent enquiry against the petitioner by supplying documents to him on which reliance is placed and the enquiry be concluded expeditiously preferably not later than six weeks from today. The petitioner must extend full cooperation for conclusion of the enquiry and if hearing is required, opportunity be given to the petitioner during enquiry. The Authority may consider the matter whether the petitioner is entitled for personal hearing during enquiry. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority of the college for permission to attend classes. The authority shall examine the representation of the petitioner and shall deal with it on merits in accordance with law.

Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid.

No order as to costs.