AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Ramesh Chander challenging the decision of the Syndicate dated 20th January, 1963 conveyed to the petitioner by the letter dated 2nd February, 1963 issued by the Registrar, Punjab University, respondent No. 2.
According to the allegations of the petitioner, he passed his B.A. Examination from the Punjab University which was held in September, 1956, while he was serving as a regular teacher in the M.G.M. High School, Gurdaspur. Later on, he passed his M.A. Economics (Part I) Examination of this very University, which was held in September, 1957. After the declaration of results, he was duly given the B.A. Degree and M.A. Economics (Part I) Certificate. After about seven years, some-time in November. 1962, he received a letter dated 23rd November 1962, from the Registrar, Punjab University, to the following effect:
On enquiry made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, in October. 1960, it has been established that you were not a regular teacher with a 9 months'' continuous service in the M.G.M. High School, Gurdaspur, in the year 1956. But you appeared in the B.A. Examination held in September 1956 by obtaining a false certificate of your being a regular teacher with the required service to your credit, from the Headmaster of that School. Before your result for the B.A. Examination (September 1956) is quashed and Degree cancelled, you are advised to clear your position immediately.
In reply to this letter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 13th December, 1962 through the Headmaster, M.G.M. High School, Gurdaspur, which runs as under:
Reference your letter No 8694/ER2, dated 23rd November, 1962, I have the honour to submit as under :
The subject matter of your letter has taken me off my feet and I am surprised to note the drastic step hinted at in the same at the time when it is about seven years since I passed my B.A. Examination and when I am fully settled in life. It is past my comprehension how the Inspector has represented this certificate to be false one. Nor do I understand how I was not eligible for my B.A. (September, 1956) Examination, while I had put in more than fourteen months'' approved service as a teacher from July, 1955 to September, 1956.
In this connection, I may be allowed to mention that this complaint about my eligibility as I have come to understand was lodged by Shri Gurmit Singh Cheema, who was not on good terms with the Headmaster, and who with a view to wreak vengeance upon the Headmaster has involved me in the case without any reason.
I, therefore, request the University Authority to take a realistic, sympathetic and humanitarian attitude about this case and not to give any undue importance to this complaint which is entirely based on personal enmity.
Nothing else happened afterwards and he was informed by a letter dated 2nd February 1963 from the Registrar that the Syndicate vide its decision dated 20th January 1963 had quashed his results for both the Examinations, namely, B.A. and M.A. Economics (Part I), because he had obtained admission to the B.A. Examination on the false statement that he was on the staff of the M.G.M. High School, Gurdaspur and was thus eligible to appear in the Examination. He was further advised to return his B.A. Degree and the M.A. Economics (Part I) Certificate for cancellation. On 13th March 1963 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University, respondent No. 1, through respondent No. 2, against the said decision of the Syndicate. On 14th March 1963 he sent a registered letter to respondent No. 2 requesting him to supply the following documents:
(1) A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the petitioner''s B.A. and M.A. (Economics Part I) results had been quashed;
(2) A copy of the University Regulations under which the petitioner''s B.A. Degree and M.A. (Economics Part I) Certificate had been cancelled; and
(3) A copy of Para. 21 of the proceedings of the Syndicate''s meeting held on 20th January 1963, in which the impugned decision was taken.
The petitioner had not received any reply from the Registrar either to his representation dated 13th March 1963 or his letter dated 14th March 1963. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 15th April 1963.
In the return filed by the respondents, it was admitted that the petitioner had passed his B.A. Examination from the Punjab University held in September 1956, but it was denied that he had been serving as a regular teacher in the M.G.M. High School, Gurdaspur, for the requisite period. The petitioner''s father. Shri Kesho Ram, was the Headmaster of this School in 1955-56 and he issued a false certificate to the petitioner to enable him to appear in the B.A. Examination held in September 1956 in the capacity of a teacher, in spite of the fact that he did not work as such for the prescribed period of nine months. The basis of the petitioner''s appearing in B.A. Examination was the false certificate issued by his father and, consequently, he was not eligible to appear in M.A. Examination as well This matter had already been inquired into by the Office of the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, and as a result of the enquiry by the Deputy Inspector of Schools that the certificate issued by the father of the petitioner to his son was false, the Punjab University instituted the necessary investigation and directed to petitioner to clear his position. As a result of the enquiry, the Deputy Inspector of Schools came to the following conclusions:
Shri Ramesh Sharma joined that School in July 1955. He has marked his presence in the attendance register from 1st July to 25th July and 26th September to 24th December, 1955 and January 1956. The school was closed for summer vacation from July 26th to September 25, 1955. Shri Ramesh Sharma has been shown on leave from February 1956 to April 1956 and he has been shown as relieved on 30th April 1960(?) under the signatures of the Headmaster dated 6th May 1956. During the entire period the official was on leave as under :
(1) 10 days'' casual leave from 1st October 1955 to 10th October 1955.
(2) 3 months'' leave from 1st February 1958 to 30th June 1956(?).
No copy of the appointment order is available in the school record. There is no record of allotment of time table and other duties of the teacher.
Shri Ramesh Chander has been shown as additional teacher in the a quittance roll and he has charged his salary as under :
(1) November 1955, Rs. 35/- for 21 days.
(2) December 1955 and January 1956, full months at Rs. 50/-.
These facts indicated that the petitioner was never appointed as a regular member of the staff. During the period of nine months from 1st July 1955 to 30th April 1956, he had been shown on leave for the last three months. All that showed that his name was borne on the attendance register simply to make him appear in the B.A. Examination as teacher of a recognised school. After due enquiry from the petitioner and the consideration of the findings of the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the explanation dated 30th November 1960 of the father of the petitioner given during the enquiry by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the Syndicate of the Punjab University in their meeting held on 20th January 1963 took the impugned decision which was communicated by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner by his letter dated 2nd February 1963. The statement of the petitioner''s father clearly proved that the petitioner worked in the School as a teacher from 1st July 1955 to 30th April 1956, whereas in the certificate given to the petitioner in the admission form it was mentioned that the petitioner was in service of the School for 11 months and 8 days commencing from 26th September 1955 to 4th September 1956. This clearly showed that the certificate issued by the petitioner''s father was false. On 10th June 1963 respondent No. 2 sent the necessary information to the father of the petitioner in reply to the letter of the petitioner dated 14th March, 1963, asking for the copies of certain documents. The University, however showed its inability to supply the copy of the enquiry report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools. It was asserted that the Syndicate quashed the results of the B.A. and M.A. Economics (Part I) Examinations of the petitioner, after considering all the available material including the reply of the petitioner dated 13th December, 1962. The petitioner was provided opportunity to explain his position and after considering his explanation along with other relevant papers, the impugned order was passed by the Syndicate. The University had power to cancel any decree or certificate obtained by a successful candidate on misrepresentation of material facts and fraud.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me-(1) that the University is authorised to cancel the degree awarded to the petitioner only under the provisions of section 24 of the East Punjab University Act, 1947 and, admittedly, no action was taken under this section and (2) that no adequate opportunity was afforded to his client to show cause against the passing of the impugned order. The enquiry by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jullundur Division, was made behind his back and later on he had not been given any opportunity of hearing or producing evidence before the impugned ex-parte decision was taken by the Syndicate. If he had been given a proper opportunity, he would have proved that the allegations contained in the letter dated 23rd November, 1962 issued by respondent No. 2 were utterly false, baseless and malicious.
As regards the first contention, there is no merit in the same. Section 24 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the following terms -
S. 24. Where evidence is laid before the Syndicate showing that any person on whom a degree, diploma, license, title or mark of honour conferred or granted by the Senate has been convicted of what is, in their opinion, a serious offence, the Syndicate may propose to the Senate that the degree, diploma, license, title or mark of honour be cancelled, and, if the proposal is accepted by not less than two thirds of the Fellows present at a meeting of the Senate and is confirmed by the Chancellor, the degree, diploma, license, title or mark of honour shall be cancelled accordingly.
A plain reading of this section would show that it is meant for a specific purpose, namely, when a person on whom a degree has been conferred, is later on convicted of a serious offence. The present case is not of that type and, as such, it was not necessary for the University Authorities to take action under this section and follow the procedure mentioned therein. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the University, the degree had been cancelled under Regulation 1(iii) appearing under the head ''Rectification of results'' at page 97 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1962, Volume I, which reads as under-
The Syndicate shall have power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared, if-
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) he is found ineligible to appear in the examination.
According to this Regulation, if a candidate is found ineligible to appear in the examination, then his result can be quashed In the present case, it has been found by the University Authorities that the petitioner had appeared in the B.A. (September) Examination on the basis of a false certificate issued by the Headmaster and he was not eligible to so appear. The University Authorities were, therefore, right in canceling his result and asking him to surrender the decree, which was found on that result and had become useless, the moment the result was quashed.
With regard to the second contention, I am of the view that no proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause against the impugned order. The decision of the University primarily based on an enquiry made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. It is common ground that this inquiry was held by the Deputy Inspector behind the back of the petitioner. If he had been given a proper opportunity, he could have proved to the satisfaction of the officer concerned that the allegations made against him were false and baseless. The so-called enquiry made by the University, in my opinion, was wholly insufficient, especially when the petitioner was neither given a copy of the report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools nor informed about the material on which the same was based. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not be expected to give a suitable explanation in reply to the letter dated 23rd November, 1962 issued by the University Authorities to him. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. Examination in 1956 and action was being taken against him after about seven years, during which period he got his M.A. Decree and had settled in life. It was only fair that if some action had to be taken after such a long period, he should be given full opportunity to prove his innocence. Since he was not a party to the inquiry held by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, which had mainly influenced the decision of the Punjab University, I am of the opinion that the impugned order must be set aside on that ground, because the principles of natural justice had not been observed in the present case.
The result is that this petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will make no order as to costs.