Sukhbinder Singh vs The Punjab University

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition filed by Sukhbinder Singh, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order, dated 23rd January, 1968 passed by the University of the Punjab, disqualifying him for a period of two years i.e. 1967-68 (four sessions) under regulation 13(b) given at page 106 of the Punjab University Calendar 1966, Volume I.

According to the allegations of the petitioner, he took Three Years Degree Course Part II examination held in April 1967 from Qadian Examination Centre. His Roll number was 3534 (12671 fictitious). Two other students also took the examination at the same centre. Their roll numbers were 3533 (12657 fictitious) and 3542 (12675 fictitious). The Superintendent and the supervisory staff in the examination centre had come from outside and were not known to the petitioner. The petitioner took his examination in all the papers to his satisfaction. During the course of the examination, neither the petitioner nor any other student was suspected or reported against for using any unfair means by the members of the supervisory staff. When the result of the examination was declared, the petitioner was surprised to find that his result had been kept pending. Later on, the petitioner received a letter from the University asking him to appear before the authorities in connection with the unfair means case pending against him. He, accordingly, went there on 5th of August, 1967. He was given a questionnaire and was asked to reply to it. In the said questionnaire, it was being suggested that the head examiner in Mathematics Paper II had sent a report that several students, including the petitioner, had copied answers to some of the questions set in the paper. The petitioner was alleged to have copied questions Nos. IV(a) and XI (i) along with roll numbers mentioned in the report. The petitioner denied the said suggestion and submitted that be had done those questions himself. It was also alleged that the copying had been done with the connivance of the supervisory staff. The petitioner denied that suggestion as well. From the report of the head examiner and the expert, it was quite clear that there was a mass scale copying at the centre. The expert had given the opinion that the said copying was due to the active help of the supervisory staff. The petitioner denied all the allegations and maintained that in presence of the effective supervision by the supervisory staff, it was not possible to indulge in copying. He also said that the qu2stions had been attempted by him on his own. Sometime later, the petitioner was shocked to learn that he had been disqualified by the University for two years i.e. 1967-68 and that decision was conveyed to him by the Principal, of the Sikh National College, Qadian vide his letter dated 31st January, 1968. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 19th May, 1968.

In the return filed by the University, it was admitted that the petitioner was not detected in the examination hall using unfair means and no report to that effect was made by the members of the supervisory staff. The result of the petitioner was not declared and was kept pending on account of a complaint against him from the head examiner for his having used unfair means in the examination. It was admitted that the University had sent a letter asking the petitioner to appear in the University office in connection with the unfair means case pending against him. He did appear on 5th August, 1967 and was called upon to answer the charges against him. A questionnaire was supplied to him for recording his answers. He wrote the replies in his own hand after full consideration. The entire material available with the University, including the reports of the head examiner and the expert, were shown to him. His answer book and those of the other candidates relevant for the purpose of his case, were also produced before him. The precise charge against him was that he had copied question No. IV(a) and XI(i) from some other candidate/paper smuggled into the examination hall from outside. The University could not say definitely whether the smuggling had been done by the petitioner in connivance with the supervisory staff. Their answer books, however, showed that it was a case of copying. Hence a case of unfair means, which fell within the purview of regulation 13(b) of the Punjab University Calendar 1966 Volume I, had been established against him and a decision to that effect was taken by the Standing Committee of the University.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Standing Committee was based on no evidence. The charge against the petitioner was that his answers to questions No. IV(a) and XI(i) had tallied with those given by the candidate bearing fictitious roll number 12657 and both of them seemed to have copied from the papers smuggled into the examination centre from outside. The decision given by the Standing Committee had nowhere mentioned that the answer to those two questions given by the petitioner and the other candidate tallied with each other.

The relevant part of the decision of the Standing Committee in this case is in these words :

The answer book of this candidate reveals that in his solution to Q. No. XI (i) he has written =x2 in 2nd, 3rd. 6th 7th steps instead of =x3. In the second steps on page 2 of the answer the factor e x2 (dv/dx + 2xv ) = x3. eX2, which is the base for solving this question, cannot be obtained by taking the Right hand side as = x2, as taken by the candidate. The appearance of x3 in x3. ex2 while the candidate has used x2 for x3, is enough to prove that the candidate has copied from somewhere.

It would be clear that according to them, the petitioner had copied the answer to question No. XI (i) from somewhere. They have not stated in the impugned decision that the petitioner''s answer to question No. XI (i) had tallied with the one given by the other candidate. In the reports of the head examiner and the expert, it had been specifically mentioned that the answers to the various questions tallied almost word for word, given by the candidates mentioned in the said reports. In the questionnaire also, what was put to the petitioner was that his answers to the questions tallied word for word, including the mistakes, with the exception of certain slips here and there, with the answers given by the other candidates including the one whose fictitious roll No. was 12657. This copying by the candidates concerned was alleged to be due to the papers having been smuggled in the examination hall from outside with the help of the supervisory staff and that is why the solution tallied in there correct as well as wrong steps. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was that his answers tallied with those of the candidate bearing fictitious roll number 12657. This fact has not been found by the Standing Committee. What has been proved was that his solution to question No. XI (i) showed that he had copied from somewhere. That was not the charge against him which he was called upon to meet. It could be that lie had incorrectly written = x2 in the second, third, sixth and seventh steps instead of =x3. but on the next page, he corrected the mistake and wrote = x3 in the factor. But the fact remains that the Standing Committee had nowhere found that his answer to this question tallied with that of the other candidate in right as well as wrong steps. The answer book of the other candidate bearing roll No. 12657 was placed before me and the learned counsel for the University could not point out that his answer to question No. XI (i) tallied with the answer to this question given by the petitioner. It was frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the University that the Standing Committee had to come to the conclusion that the answers to both the candidates tallied with each other. That finding, in my view, had not been given by the Standing Committee.

Learned Counsel submitted that the head examiner and the expert had found that the answers tallied and the Standing Committee had mentioned the said two reports in their order, but that fact cannot help the respondent, because it was the Standing Committee which had to come to the conclusion that the charge had been proved against the petitioner and the said charge being that his answers to questions IV (a) and XI (i) tallied with those of the candidate bearing roll No. 12657-fictitious. As I have already said that conclusion was not arrived at by the Standing Committee.

It might be mentioned that the precise reason on which the Standing Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner had copied his answer to question No. XI (i) from somewhere, was never put to the petitioner. He should have been asked as to how he had correctly written = x3 in the latter part of the answer when in the earlier steps, he had written = x2 instead. Hi should have been given an opportunity to explain this point.

This apart, both the expert and the head examiner had also not given the reasons mentioned by the Standing Committee in coming to the impugned decision. According to them, the answers to the two questions given by the petitioner tallied with those of other candidates, including the candidate bearing fictitious roll number 12657. That however, was not found by the Standing Committee.

In view of what I have said above, I would accept this petition and quash the impugned order. There will, however, be no order as to costs.