Satish Chander Wadhawan vs The Punjab University

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the action of the Standing Committee of the Punjab University dealing with unfair means, cases whereby the petitioner S.C. Wadhawan has been disqualified for a period of four years (i.e., 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967) under Regulation 13 (a) at page 90 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1962, Volume I, from appearing in any University Examination.

The petitioner having passed part I of the M. Sc. Geology Examination in the year 1963 sat for Part II of the same examination in the year 1964. This examination was held from the 17th April to the 23rd of April, 1964. The venue of the examination was the Law College Building, Punjab University Campus.

The Head of the Department, Prof. M.R. Sahni while forwarding the result sheets of this examination directed that the result of the roll No. 85 be withheld as the candidate had indulged in copying during the course of examination. The exact words of the Professor are-

Please note that the result of the candidate, roll No. 85 is to be withheld at this is a clear case of copying.

Roll No. 85 admittedly is the petitioner. Hardly had Mr Sahni written this letter that he followed it with another letter dated the 17th of June 1964 addressed to the Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh. This letter was received on the 18th of June 1964. In this letter Prof. Sahni stated that he had an occasion to meet the candidate and had discussed the matter with him and after his discussion he had come to the conclusion that the case earlier reported to by him is not a case of copying but "merely a case of lack of Judgment on the part of the candidate." I can only observe, that either Mr. Sahni is easily approachable or is a very credulous person or has no regard for truth. Any person who has a mere look at the candidate''s answer book will have no manner of doubt, as I will point out later, that this is a clear case where the candidate has brought material from outside and has used it in the Examination Hall. However, Mr. Sahni''s attempt to white wash the candidate''s guilt failed and the University Authorities proceeded to enquire into the matter. The first show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the 1st of July 1964. This is in the form of a questionnaire, as usual with the University. He replied to the questionnaire on the 7th of July 1964. The relevant questions put to the petitioner and his answers to them are recorded below-

Q. 4. How many supplementary answer-sheets were attached by you with your answer-book ?

A. Now I do not remember the exact number of sheets attached. I do not remember. My answer-book may be consulted.

Q. 5. Is the whole material attached with your answer-book ?

A. Yes.

Q. 6. Is it a fact that the whole matter written by you in the answer-book was written by you ?

A. Yes.

Q. 8. Do you see the old continuation-sheets attached with your answer-book ?

A. I have seen these continuation-sheets.

Q. 9. The continuation-sheets mentioned in question 8 above do not belong to the University stock. From where did you arrange the said continuation-sheets ?

A. I used the continuation-sheets as supplied by the supervisory staff in the hall.

Q. 10. You have brought the old continuation-sheets duly written from outside and the said sheets do not belong to University stock You are, therefore, charged of smuggling in of the said continuation-sheets from outside. You are, therefore, directed to show cause as to why should you not be punished for the offence of smuggling in of the said sheets according to unfair means regulations ?

A. I never brought any continuation-sheet or any other paper from outside.

Q. 11. Your Examiner has also reported against you that you have imported the said sheets from outside duly written and attached ?

A. I have nothing to add to my answer to question No. 10 above.

Q. 13. Some of the continuation-sheets (shown to you) appear to have been written in pencil. You have erazed the matter and over-written upon it by pen. Why have you done so ?

A. I might have erased since formerly I gave some wrong answer. Pencil may also have been used in drawing figures. My previous results of the examination may also be consulted. I topped in the previous year too, getting 420 marks in it. My previous record from the Department may also be checked. There is nothing such in that.

Q. 17. Why have you done erasing in old continuation-sheets only and nowhere else ?

A. Since the question which I at first did was unfortunately given a wrong answer, therefore it had to be erased. It is just a coincidence that the erasing had to be done on these.

Q. 18. Why you did not mention the number of continuation-sheets on the title cover of your answer book ?

A. As far I can recollect, since there was no time left, and the invigilators were snatching the answer-books, I could not write the number of continuation-sheets used.

Q. 19. The allegation against you and the evidence thereof have been notified to you in detail before you submit your explanation in connection with your case. All the documents relevant to your case have also been shown to you. Do you want to say anything else in connection with your case ?

A. As already stated I have made it clear that whatever was provided to me by the supervisory staff on duty in the hall was used by me. The rubbing was done to erase the unwanted and wrong answer which was at first given.

It appears that at the intervention of one of the members of the Standing Committee the petitioner was issued a second questionnaire which he answered on the 24th of August 1964. The questions in the second questionnaire are more or less on the same lines and the explanation is practically the same, though differently worded. After considering the explanation of the petitioner the Standing Committee passed the impugned order and this is how the present petition has been preferred in this Court.

It will be proper at this stage to proceed with the close scrutiny of the answer-book. At pages one, six, nine and then the petitioner wrote the wrong word or words and he did not erase the same but merely cancelled the same by drawing a line or lines over them. Same is the modus operandi on pages 11, 13, 14 and 15. After the first answer-book was used up, the petitioner obtained a number of continuation-sheets and used them.

On page 3 of the first continuation-sheets again whatever was not correctly written has been scored off and not erased. After the end of this continuation-sheet a second continuation-sheet is started. In this second continuation-sheet again at page 5 the incorrect words have been scored off. This continuation-sheet is followed by the third continuation-sheet which is one of the disputed continuation sheets. It may be mentioned that the two previous continuation-sheets are stitched with a steel hoop. The third continuation-sheet has no such stitching and not only that, it has no stamped cover like the first two continuation-sheets. The pattern of the handwriting in this disputed continuation-sheet varies drastically from the writing in the main answer-book and the two previous continuation-sheets. There are also marks of pencil writing on this disputed continuation-sheet. The pencil writing has been erased and is overwritten in ink. This is so in the case of the second, third and fourth pages of this continuation-sheet. On the first page of the fourth continuation-sheet two lines on the top have been written afresh and previous pencil written on the whole page has been erased. Some of the erased writing in pencil on this page can still be read with an effort. On the next seven pages of the fourth continuation-sheet the pencil writing has been erased and writing in ink has been substituted therefor. It is also significant that all the pages of the main answer-book and the continuation-sheets before the third continuation-sheet are lined with mauve colour, whereas the third and the fourth continuation-sheets are lined with blue colour. Moreover, the paper with blue lines is oldish, whereas the paper with mauvish lines is new.

There is no dispute as to the fifth, sixth and the seventh continuation-sheets, though the fifth and the sixth sheets do not have a stamped cover, whereas the seventh has such a cover.

The eighth and the ninth continuation-sheets are peculiar. Both of them have stamped covers with mauvish lines but in between the covers old paper pages with blue lines have been inserted. These pages are also of the same type and pattern as the pages of the third and fourth continuation-sheets. This also gives a clue as to why the fifth and sixth continuation-sheets are without a stamped cover. Their covers have been taken off to be put in pages of the type of the third continuation-sheet. The only difference between the eighth and ninth continuation-sheets and the third and fourth continuation-sheets is that the eighth page of the eighth continuation-sheets has no erasures. Again the pages of these two continuation-sheets (eighth and ninth) are not alike. The cover is different from the body of the sheets and the colour of the lines of the cover and inside sheets clearly makes it out.

There is no dispute as to the last continuation-sheet.

Anyone who examines this answer-book closely will have no doubt left in his mind that the parts of the book contain smuggled material. In this situation I thought it proper to give the petitioner and his counsel full opportunity to clear my doubts on this matter. Excepting catching at straws no cogent or satisfactory explanation has been offered. I have examined the other answer-books of the petitioner with regard to the other Question-papers in this very examination and I find that there is no erasing in those answer-books. Wherever he has answered wrongly he has struck off the answer. This is the only answer-book in which not only erasions occur but also the erased matter has been overwritten in ink. The erasions are not of a minor character. Pages and pages of the answer-books are erased. Moreover in all these answer-books there is not as angle leaf sheet. All sheets have four pages, i.e., one sheet is folded twice and then stitched, whereas the smuggled material consists of one part of that single sheet the other part of which is missing. The explanation of the petitioner as to the erasures was that he only erased pencil figures, whereas what he has erased from the answer-book are not only the pencil figures but whole lot of writing. It seems remarkable that the petitioner could have accomplished all this within three hours at his disposal. I may also emphasise that the petitioner has admitted the authorship of the entire answer-book. It is not his case that the answer-book contains material in someone else''s hand. The learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed inspection of all the continuation-sheets supplied to all the candidates who appeared on that date in the same centre. None of those continuation-sheets is either old or of the type used by the petitioner which are held by the University Authorities to be smuggled ones. It is well known that a good student will not take a dilapidated continuation sheet. He would protest to the supervisory staff that he would require a clean sheet. No such protest was ever made by the petitioner and moreover the explanation of the petitioner that he was supplied the old continuation sheets is not borne out by the fact that no other candidate who has used continuation-sheets has used such type of sheets as the petitioner has done on which there is the dispute. Some of the dilapidation is due to erasions. It is in this background that the petitioner''s contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity by the University Authorities before inflicting the punishment under Regulation 13 (a) of the Regulations relating to the use of unfair means published in the University Calendar of 1962, Volume I, page 90 has to be examined.

It is manifest that the only material to establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner is the answer-book. It establishes a prima facie case against the petitioner. There is no other material which the University could possibly get hold of to prove the most patent fact. In the circumstances of this case, it was really for the petitioner to clear the ground by showing in what circumstances he resorted to this pattern of writing in his answer-book, particularly when it is unlike any other answer-book of the petitioner. This opportunity was amply and fully afforded by the University to the petitioner. He was not only examined once but twice. He has singularly failed to give any satisfactory explanation to what the answer-book clearly proves against the petitioner, namely, that the petitioner has smuggled in written answers in pencil for the purposes of the examination. About the explanation furnished by the petitioner all that I can say is that it is a tissue of lies and I am not prepared to accept the same. It is wholly unconvincing. Even in Court neither the petitioner nor his counsel could give any cogent explanation of what is writ large on the answer-book. In this situation it cannot be said that the University has failed to observe the rules of natural justice in this case. The material which went against the petitioner and on the basis of which the petitioner has been disqualified was put to him and he was afforded full opportunity to explain it away. The mere fact that the material is such that it cannot at all be explained away is no ground to hold that the opportunity afforded is not either proper or adequate.

Mr. Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly laid stress on the fact that the supervisory staff has stated that they were not a party to the smuggling and that the sheets that were supplied to the petitioner were from the stock of the University and were moth-eaten or otherwise dilapidated. These factors do not in any way go to prove the innocence of the petitioner. They are really matters of no consequence. It is a matter of common knowledge that University sheets can be procured by any person who is so inclined to procure them. It is also a matter of common knowledge that no candidate while entering the Examination Hall or leaving it is searched. Therefore it all depends on how far the staff is vigilant and how far the candidate is clever enough to make use of the material which he has been able to smuggle in. The fact remains that the answer-book of the petitioner itself proves that some material in that book is smuggled material and I have amply indicated the basis on which no person with any common-sense can take a different view. It is very unfortunate that a young man who is on the threshold of his career and who says that he had a very bright academic career should have resorted to this practice and when caught should have put the blame elsewhere and not where it actually lies. As such no consideration can be shown to such a person. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the University was perfectly justified in disqualifying the petitioner and no case whatever has been made out by the petitioner which calls for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It would be proper to mention that the University placed the entire records of this case before me and I have gone through the same and I find that all reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to prove his innocence. I also permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to examine the records. The records have been returned to the University excepting the answer book in question of the petitioner which has been directed to be put in a sealed cover and kept in safe custody by the Deputy Registrar till the limitation for a Letters Patent appeal expires, if one is filed, it is decided. Thereafter it will be returned to the University.

Mr. Sachar as a last resort argued that Regulation 13(a) aforesaid was replaced by a regulation of the same number in the year 1964. The amended regulation reads thus-

Candidate found guilty of smuggling in an answer-book or a continuation-sheet, of taking out or of arranging to send out an answer-book or a continuation-sheet, of replacing his answer-book or a continuation-sheet during or after the examination with the connivance of or of having made previous arrangement with the Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent (Clerk)/Supervisory Staff, Menial Staff or any other agency shall be disqualified from appearing in any University Examination for four years and/or shall also be liable to such other punishment as may be decided by the Vice-Chancellor.

According to Mr. Sachar the amended regulation applies and if it applies it is incumbent on the University to prove that there was connivance between the petitioner and a member of the supervisory staff or some other person, Mr. Sachar said that there was no material on which such a connivance could be held to have been proved and that there was no such finding by the University. He therefore argued that the case against the petitioner, even if all the allegations against him were accepted to be correct, is one falling under Regulation 11(c) of the Regulations in the aforesaid calendar. Regulation 11(c) provides for disqualification for a period of two years and not four years and therefore it is urged that in any case the disqualification in the present case should have been for a period of two years and not for four years.

This contention of the learned counsel has no basis. In the first place the Regulation was amended after the petitioner had resorted to smuggling. Therefore the petitioner''s case has to be determined under the old Regulation. In any case the new Regulation also does not help the petitioner. From the proved facts of this case the inference clearly arises that the petitioner had smuggled these papers because they are not the papers which were supplied by the supervisory staff. It is very easy for a person who has brought extraneous material written on University paper but not the papers in vogue at that particular examination to remove the papers supplied to him and substitute the papers brought in by him for those papers. Therefore in this situation it cannot be said that the amended Regulation does not bring home the charge to the petitioner.

After giving this matter my careful consideration I have no doubt whatever in my mind that the University has correctly imposed the impugned punishment on the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 100/-.