Shri Surrinder Kumar Bansal vs The Punjab University and Another

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition by Surrinder Kumar Bansal under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Punjab University respondent No. 1, directing them to declare the result of the petitioner, who had appeared in the Supplementary Examination of the second engineering class held in September 1961.

According to the petitioner, he was a student of the Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana, from where he passed his first engineering class examination in 1960. He appeared in the second engineering class examination in April, 1961. When he was appearing in the third paper1 on 4th April, 1961, he had completed the paper and was handing over the same to the Superintendent in the examination hall, ha was detained by the Superintendent and was questioned about a chit of paper as to whether the same belonged to him and had been written by him. Thereupon he gave the following statement in writing:-

This chit is not mine and after I handed over the papers to the Superintendent, this chit has been picked up from somewhere at a distance of my seat. I do not know to whom it belongs and from where if has come.

He was not informed as to whether any action would be taken against him. He appeared in the rest of the papers of this examination. He, however, was declared unsuccessful in this examination. Even up to that date, he was neither called upon by the University Authorities to submit his explanation about the chit mentioned above nor was he given any charge sheet regarding the same. He appeared in the Supplementary Examination, which was held in September, 1961, and completed all his papers. This result was to be declared in the month of November, 1961. On 13th November, 1961 a notice was put up by the Principal on the notice-board of his college to the effect that the Punjab University had disqualified the petitioner for the April and September examinations held in 1961. Thereupon, he approached the Principal to find out the details as to under what regulations the University Authorities had taken this action against him. The Principal, however, informed him that a letter on this subject had been received from the University and therefore the above notice was put up by him. It appears that the petitioner''s father obtained a copy of the above letter dated 6th November 1961 sent by the Punjab University to the Principal, Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana, from the University Office on 5th February 1962 and thereupon the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 12th February 1962.

In the return filed by the Punjab University, through its Registrar, it was stated that on 4th April 1961, when the time allowed for'' answering the paper was over at 11-00 A.M. and the petitioner was handing over his answer book to Shri Gursharan Singh, Supervisor, a hand-written chit, copy of which is annexure ''R-1'', was found by him at that very time under the table of the petitioner. The said chit contained certain formulae which were relevant to the subject in which the petitioner was appearing at that time. Earlier on that day, the petitioner had been warned by the Supervisor, when he was trying to talk with a candidate who was sitting just behind his seat. The incident with regard to the hand-written chit was immediately brought to the notice of the Superintendent, Mr. K.S. Jolly, by the Supervisor and the answer-book alongwith chit, R. 1, was handed over to him. The petitioner was at once asked by the Superintendent to explain his conduct. Thereupon, the following statement was given by the petitioner in his own handwriting to the Superintendent:-

This paper is not mine and I do not know from, where it has come near my seat. It was.found after the paper was handed over to the Superintendent.

Sd/- Surrinder Kumar Bansal. Roll. No. 362.

The handwritting on the chit, R. 1, had a striking resemblance with that of the petitioner in his answer-book. The petitioner was informed by the Superintendent at that very time that the matter would be reported to the University. On that very day, the Superintendent referred the Case to the Punjab University alongwith the answer-book, chit R. 1, report of the supervisor, statement of the petitioner and his own report. It was denied that the chit was never found hear the seat of the petitioner. The petitioner has already offered his explanation in writing on 4th April 1961. It was not necessary to frame any formal charge-sheet in such matters and the petitioner was fully aware of the accusation against him that he was guilty of the use of unfair means at the examination. The petitioner was provisionally allowed by the Punjab University to appear in the Supplementary Examination held in September, 1963, as the case against him about the use of unfair means was still pending. After a complete enquiry, the matter was submitted by the Registrar of the Punjab University to the Standing Committee in accordance with the Regulations framed under the East Punjab University Act, 1947. The Sub-Committee unanimously decided under Regulation 11(c) that the petitioner be disqualified for April and September, 1961 Examinations and his provisional candidature be cancelled and his result filed. In pursuance of this decision, a notification to this effect was issued by the Punjab University on 6th November, 1961 and the Principal of Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana, was duly informed of the action taken by the University in the matter. The action of the Punjab University was perfectly legal and within jurisdiction and the same was not open to question in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

There is on the record a letter dated 26th March 1962 from Shri K.S. Jolly, Head of Chemistry Department, Government College, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2, addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court, in which it is stated that whenever any examination is held, the examinees are warned everyday to surrender any papers, books etc, which they might have in their possession. They are also told that there should be no papers etc. lying oh, Under or by their seats. This is always done about 5 minutes before the question paper is distributed, This was so done on 4th April 196l also at 7-55 A.M. At 11-00 A.M. on the same day, a chit was found lying under the seat of the petitioner, who was asked to explain. The statement of the petitioner along with his report and the statement of the, Supervisor were sent to the University under registered cover the same day and the petitioner was duly-told about it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Punjab University disqualifying his client for the April and September, 1961, Examinations was liable to be set aside, because no punishment could be awarded by the University to him unless proper enquiry was held fry them in his presence and he had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Since the petitioner was not afforded any such opportunity, the order disqualifying him was against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. Reliance for this submission was placed by him on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others (1962) 64 P.L.R. 575, Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1958, decided on 16th February 1962. He also referred to Regulations 11 and 19 framed by the Punjab University in this respect, which are as follows:-

11(a) if a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books, or notes, which do not relate to the subject of examination and which could not possibly be of any assistance to him, no action will be taken against him. But the case must be reported to the Registrar with necessary papers.

The Registrar need not report such a case to the sub-Committee.

(b) If a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books or notes doe to, inadvertence but which papers, books or notes could be of assistance to him, he may be debarred from passing in that paper as a disciplinary measure without any implication or moral turpitude;

(c) If his possession of such papers, books or notes is found to be mala fide, he shall be disqualified from passing the examination in that year if he is a candidate for an examination held once a year or for two examinations including that in which he was found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination which is held twice a year.

(d) If a candidate voluntarily surrenders to the Superintendent during the course of examination, papers, books or notes left to his possession due to inadvertence and not found or detected by a member of the supervisory staff, no action may be taken against him, provided he has not made any use of them. But the case shall be reported to the Registrar.

The Syndicate shall appoint annually Standing Committee to deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in connection with examinations. When the Committee is unanimous, its decision shall be final except as given in the proviso below. If the Committee is not unanimous, the matter shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision.

Provided that in cases of the alleged use of unfair means in connection with examinations if in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor facts have been brought to light within 30 days of the receipt of the decision by the candidate which, had they been before the Committee, might have induced them to come to a decision other than the one arrived at, then the Vice Chancellor may order that such facts be reduced to writing and placed before the Committee.

The Committee shall then reconsider the case. A unanimous decision of the Committee shall be final. But in the event of a difference of opinion, the case shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who may either finally decide the case himself or refer it to the Syndicate for final decision as he thinks fit.

On their basis, he further submitted that the Standing Committee should have heard him before passing the order disqualifying him from the above mentioned Examinations.

We have gone through the Supreme Court decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, three students of G.S. Hindu Intermediate College, at Sikandra rao had appeared at the Inter-mediate (Commerce) Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, in the year 1954. They passed this examination and their results were published in the newspapers on 12th June 1954 and therefore, they prosecuted further studies. In December, 1954, however, their fathers and guardians received information from the Principal of the College, in which they were studying, that the Examinations'' Committee of the Board had cancelled their results for the 1954-Examination and they had also been debarred from appearing at the Examination of 1955. Thereupon, they filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad, contending that the Examinations'' Committee had never afforded any opportunity to them to rebut the allegations made against them and that they were never informed about the nature of unfair means used" by them in the said Examination and the first thing they came to know was the resolution of the Committee cancelling their results and debarring them from appearing in the examination of 1955. The procedure adopted by the Board, according to them, was in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as they were not given any opportunity whatsoever to defend themselves and to show cause against the action contemplated against them. In the return filed by the Board, it was stated that the students had used unfair means at the Examination and their cases had been reported to the Committee under the Regulations and the Committee had acted under the powers conferred on it under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder after a thorough enquiry. It was, however, not disputed that no opportunity had been afforded to them to rebut the allegations against them in the enquiry made by the Committee, which resulted in the resolution cancelling the results of the examination. The Allahabad High Court held that the Examinations'' Committee was acting merely administratively and was not required to act judicially or Qausi-judicially, when it considered the cases of these students, but they were entitled to a hearing on the principles of natural justice contained in the maxim "audi alteram partem". The writ was granted and the impugned Resolution was quashed. Against this decision, the Board filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, after examining the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (No. 2 of 1921) and the Regulations framed thereunder, and discussing a number of authorities, came to the conclusion that the Examinations'' Committee was not acting merely administratively as held by the Allahabad High Court but it was acting quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice, which required that the other party must be heard, would apply to the proceedings before the Committee. Since it was not disputed in that case that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the students to give an explanation and put forward their cases before the Committee, the appeal of the Board was dismissed. In the case before us, however, the petitioner was caught red handed with the hand written chit, annexure R. 1, which was found under his table at the time of his handing over the answer book. The said chit contained certain formulae, which were relevant to the subject in which the petitioner was appearing on that day. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the Superintendent (sic) supervisor and the answer-book alongwith the chat was handed over to him. The explanation of the petitioner in his own handwriting was immediately taken by the Superintendent on the spot. It was found that the handwriting on the chit had a striking resemblance with that of the petitioner in his answer-book. The petitioner was informed by the Superintendent at that very time that the matter would be reported to the University. On that very day the whole case was sent to the Punjab University by the Superintendent. The entire material consisting of the petitioner''s answer-book, the chit, R. 1, the explanation of the petitioner and the reports of the Supervisor and the Superintendent wag placed before the Standing Committee, which considered the same and unanimously decided that the petitioner be disqualified for April and September, 1961, Examinations under Regulation 11(c), It will thus be seen that while in the case before the Supreme Court, the students did not know what the allegations against them were and they had been, admittedly, given no opportunity whatsoever to explain their position, in the, present case the petitioner was caught red handed with the hand written chit, regarding which his explanation was immediately taken in his own handwriting, as mentioned above. The handwriting on the chit bore a striking resemblance with that of the petitioner''s answer book. The entire material, as referred to above, was considered by the Standing Committee and then action was taken by them against the petitioner. In our opinion, the decision of the Standing Committee is in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 11 and 19, framed by the Punjab University.

In view of what we have said above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in these proceedings.

Dulat, J.

I agree.