T. C. KOSITY v. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA — 1962 DIGILAW 301 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order Ext. P-2, passed by the Syndicate of the Kerala University in so far as it relates to his client. 2. Under Ext. P-2 dated 18 51962, the Syndicate passed an order to the effect that the candidates mentioned therein, in which the petitioner's name is also included, at the University Examinations held in September 1961, were found guilty of malpractice at the Examination, and that the Syndicate has resolved that the examination taken by the candidates, including the petitioner herein, whose particulars are noted at foot, be cancelled and that they be debarred from appearing for any Examination of the University for the periods noted against each of them. In particular, the petitioner figures as No. 4 in the list annexed to the order Ext. P-2, and he has been debarred from taking any examination in the University for a period of two years, i. e., till September 1963. 3. According to Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the petitioner, the order Ext. P-2 has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner had no opportunity to know the basis on which the said decision had been taken by the Syndicate authorities. And quite naturally the learned counsel placed considerable reliance upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Board of High School v. Ghanshyam (AIR. 1962 SC. 1110). 4. The petitioner was a student of the St. Berchman's College, Changanacherry in the III years B. Sc. course from 1959 June onwards. He appeared for the II year Examination of the B. Sc. in March 1961, and passed in Part II Malayalam and Part III General Education. The candidate appeared for Part I in September 1961 and his register No. was 3207 at the said examination. According to the petitioner, he wrote the Examination on 25-9-1961, and also sat for all the subjects in that September Examination. 5. While so, the petitioner states that he received a memorandum from the Kerala University dated 30th October 1961, Ext. P-1. According to the petitioner, he wrote the Examination on 25-9-1961, and also sat for all the subjects in that September Examination. 5. While so, the petitioner states that he received a memorandum from the Kerala University dated 30th October 1961, Ext. P-1. stating that it was reported that the petitioner was found introducing additional answer books with answers previously prepared, while answering the paper on English Paper I (Poetry and Drama), on the first day of the Examination, and directing the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It is also stated in Ext. P-1 that the petitioner who is a candidate at the II B. Sc. (Three-year) Degree Examination, with Register No. 3207 and taking the Examination in September 1961, is informed that it is reported to the University authorities that he was found introducing additional answer books previously prepared while answering English I Paper (Poetry and Drama). Ext. P-1 winds up by asking the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken as against him. 6. The petitioner appears to have sent a reply to the communication Ext. P-1, under Ext. RI dated 1311 1961. In Ext. RI the petitioner submits that he has not introduced additional answer books with answers previously prepared, while answering the paper on English I (Poetry and Drama). He also says that he is very sorry that he has been suspected of malpractice, and requests that the matter may be closed. 7. The reply Ext. RI was sent by the petitioner on 13111961; and according to him the only order he got is the order Ext. P-2 referred to above, wherein he has been debarred from appearing for any examination of the University for the period prescribed therein. And the grievance of the petitioner, as placed before me by Mr. K. C. John learned counsel, is that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to establish his plea in Ext. R1 that he is not guilty of the charges levelled as against him. 8. Mr. V. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the Syndicate, has pointed out that there was a report to the Chief Superintendent, the Principal of the St. Berchman's College, Changanacherry, by the Assistant Superintendent, who was in charge of the Examination on 25-9-1961, evidenced by Ext. R.2. In Ext. 8. Mr. V. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the Syndicate, has pointed out that there was a report to the Chief Superintendent, the Principal of the St. Berchman's College, Changanacherry, by the Assistant Superintendent, who was in charge of the Examination on 25-9-1961, evidenced by Ext. R.2. In Ext. R 2 dated 25 91961 the said Assistant Superintendent informs the Chief Superintendent that the petitioner while writing paper I (English) in Hall No. 12 was found introducing additional books with answers previously prepared, and that he was found filling up the facing book hurriedly. It is further mentioned that at the petitioner's request the Hall Examiner gave him two additional books, one of which was returned unused. In Ext. R2 it is further mentioned that when the petitioner tied the answer book, he had more than one additional book, and that made the Hall Examiner suspect the insertion of ready made answers. After mentioning all these things, the Assistant Superintendent winds up Ext. R2 with the statement that the answer book of the petitioner is submitted to the Chief Superintendent separately. 9. On the basis of the communication Ext. R2, Mr. V. N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the Syndicate, urged that the Chief Superintendent, in turn, sent the communication Ext. R3 on 27 91961 to the Registrar of the Kerala University. In Ext. R3 the Chief Superintendent again states that the candidate for the 2nd year B. So. Degree Examination (three-year), namely the petitioner, is suspected to have introduced additional books with answers prepared previously. No doubt, in Ext. R3 it is mentioned that since the case is not proved beyond doubt, the Chief Superintendent allowed the candidate to write the rest of the Examination, and his answer book is sent in a separate cover. 10. Mr. V. N. Subramonia Iyer urged that after the receipt of the report of the Hall Superintendent as well as that of the Chief Superintendent, the University considered this matter and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the allegation that he has inserted answer books brought by him from outside the examination hall in question. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Subramania Iyer no doubt produced the file pertaining to this matter, wherein according to him, it is clear that it evidences the various matters which were considered by the authorities concerned and the materials that were available before them before they took the decision under Ext. P-2. 12. Without in any manner doubting the bona fides of the nature of the inquiry stated to have been made by the authorities concerned in the matter for collecting materials or arriving at the conclusion, the position nevertheless is that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under attack has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, has to be accepted in the circumstances of this case. 13. This position is now fairly well settled in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School v. Ghanashyam (AIR. 1962 SC. 1110). In particular, it will be seen that Mr. Justice Wanchoo, expressing the opinion on behalf of the Bench, observes that in such circumstances the authority concerned is acting quasi judicially and the principles of natural justice, which require that the other party (namely, the examinee) must be heard, will apply to the proceedings before the committee. The learned judge has also stated that, notwithstanding the fact that there was no procedure indicated in the statute in question and no particular form of inquiry has been prescribed, either by the statute or the rules, where quasi-judicial duties are entrusted to an administrative body like the one before their Lordships, it becomes a quasi-judicial body for performing those duties and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and adequate opportunity of presenting his case is given to the examinee. 14. The question therefore is whether, having due regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the University in this case can be said to have conformed to those directions. 15. In my view, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner has been given a full and fair opportunity of substantiating his plea, namely that he is not guilty of the charges levelled as against him. Even the report of the Chief Superintendent has not been made known to the petitioner and the only information given to him under Ext. Even the report of the Chief Superintendent has not been made known to the petitioner and the only information given to him under Ext. P-1 is that it is reported that the petitioner has copied his answers and asking as to why disciplinary action should not be taken as against him. If the petitioner had accepted the allegation as true, the position would be entirely different. But in this case, I have already indicated, that the petitioner controverts the allegation that has been made against him by the authorities. In these circumstances, in my view there was an obligation on the part of the authorities concerned, before passing the order debarring the candidate in question, of placing before the petitioner the materials that were available before them and give an opportunity to the petitioner to place his objections and also to controvert any materials that are sought to be used by the Syndicate as against the petitioner. 16. More or less under similar circumstances, I had to state in O. P. No. 590/61 that before action is taken regarding the allegation of malpractice against the student, the case as presented by him must be fully considered and the examinee must also be given an opportunity to substantiate the allegations made as against him. I have already indicated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that the examinee must be given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry to be held by the authorities concerned. 17. No doubt, in this case, in fairness to the University it must be said that it only proceeded on the basis that the proceedings that they were initiating and taking were purely of an administrative character. But that position now stands altered in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. If that is so, there is an obligation on the part of a quasi-judicial authority like the University in this case, to conduct a fair and proper inquiry before they come to the conclusion holding persons like the petitioner guilty. No doubt, no rules, as such have been framed, and it is a matter for the Syndicate to consider in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as to whether it is desirable to have some sort of rules governing action to be taken as against persons like the petitioner. 18. No doubt, no rules, as such have been framed, and it is a matter for the Syndicate to consider in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as to whether it is desirable to have some sort of rules governing action to be taken as against persons like the petitioner. 18. No doubt, the order which is under attack in this case, namely Ext. P-2, so far as the petitioner is concerned, will have to be set aside for the reasons given by me above. But that does not mean that the University should forthwith declare the results of the examinations taken by the petitioner. That will be subject to the final result of the inquiry that is to be conducted by the University in respect of the allegations contained in Ext. P-1. And it is needless again to emphasise that the inquiry to be conducted by the University must conform to the principles of natural justice. 19. Subject to the directions and observations contained in this order, the order under attack is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Mr. V. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the University, has urged that there are several other matters pending before the University, and in order to afford them proper guidance as to the procedure to be followed, it is highly desirable that copy of this judgment be furnished to him at an early date. The office will take immediate steps to give copy of this judgment within a period not exceeding two weeks from today. Allowed.