Himanshu Singh v. University of Allahabad — 1985 DIGILAW 189 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : O.P. Saxena, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 12th July 1984 (Anuexure 11) and the cancellation of his result vide order dated 1st October, 1984 (Annexure 3). 2. The Petitioner appeared in the B. Com. Part II Examination of the Allahabad University for the year 1984. On 23rd May 1984, while the Petitioner was answering the question paper, the Flying Squad made a surprise check-up. A hand-written chit containing material pertaining to the syllabus of the question paper of that day was recovered from the Petitioner's answer-book. The Chief Invigilator immediately gave notice to the Petitioner and called upon him to furnish his explanation. The Petitioner denied the recovery of unauthorised material. On 12th July 1984, the Petitioner was served with show cause notice (Annexure 1). On 12st July 1984 the Petitioner submitted reply (Annexure 2) to the show cause notice. The Vice-Chancellor appointed an Unfair Means Committee for examining the cases of use of unfair means. The Unfair Means Committee examined the case of the Petitioner and after considering his reply, it was satisfied that the Petitioner was guilty of the offence referred to in Ordinance 16(A)(i) and cancelled the examination of the B. Com. Part II. Annexure 3 is the copy of the result of the enquiry made by an Unfair Means Committee in respect of all the candidates alleged to have used unfair means. Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit is the copy of order passed in respect of the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the result inter alia on the grounds that the show cause notice issued to him was vague and lacking in material particulars, that it did not disclose the material and evidence on which it was based, that the Petitioner was denied opportunity of cross-examination, that the Petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the Head Examiner, that the Unfair Means Committee did not record any finding regarding the suit of the Petitioner and that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and wholly unwarranted and is in violation of law and principles of natural justice. 4. 4. The Respondent contested the petition with the allegations that the enquiry against the Petitioner was conducted in accordance wish the revised ordinance on the use of unfair means and causing disturbances in examination that the Petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the allegations made against him, that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the rules framed for this purpose and after considering the representation made by the Petitioner and that a finding of guilt was also recorded. 5. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties. The Respondent filed copy of the order passed against the Petitioner vide Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit and also a copy of the revised ordnance on the use of unfair means and of causing disturbances in the examination vide copy Annexure 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. The record of the Petitioner's case was also produced before us for perusal. 6. Sri C.M. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent did not supply a copy of the report of the Head Examiner regarding the material found from the possession of the Petitioner being relevant to the syllabus of the question paper. He urged that as the Petitioner had denied the recovery of the unauthorised material from his possession, the Unfair Means Committee should have examined the concerned officers of the Flying Squad or the invigilator or Chief Invigilator and should have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine him. He referred to the copy of the order vide Annexure 3 to the petition and submitted that no reasons were given. 7. Sri B.D. Agarwala, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no rule for examining the officer of the Flying Squad or the invigilator or the Chief Invigilator. It is not the Petitioner's case that any of these persons had any malice or bias towards him and they had falsely implicated him in this case. All these persons were wholly unknown to the Petitioner and there could be no reason for them to concoct a false case against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was shown the unauthorised material recovered from his possession immediately after the recovery and his reply was also obtained on the proper proforma. All these persons were wholly unknown to the Petitioner and there could be no reason for them to concoct a false case against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was shown the unauthorised material recovered from his possession immediately after the recovery and his reply was also obtained on the proper proforma. The original proforma was shown to us in which the Petitioner denied the recovery of the unauthorised material but did not allege any malice or bias against any of the persons concerned. The Petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed after considering his representation in accordance with the rules framed for this purpose. 8. Annexure 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit is a copy of the revised Ordinance on the use of unfair means and causing disturbances in the examination. Unfair Means has been defined in Rule 1.2(A) as below: A candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfair means" if the candidate is in possession of unauthorised material or if he has transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorised material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. 9. 'Possession of unauthorised material' has been defined in Rule 12(B) as below: "Possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environs or having such material on him in the urinal/toilet or in the passage thereto or there from at any time from the commencement of the examination till its end. 10. 'Unauthorised material' has been defined in Rule 1.2(G) as below: "Unauthorised material shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of" the examination, printed, typed, written or otherwise, on paper, cloth, wood or other material, in any language or in the form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing. 10. 'Unauthorised material' has been defined in Rule 1.2(G) as below: "Unauthorised material shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of" the examination, printed, typed, written or otherwise, on paper, cloth, wood or other material, in any language or in the form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing. Rule 14 provides as below: Punishment prescribed in these Ordinances (No. 11 to 1.6) shall be awarded by a Committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the Vice Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The cuorum of this Committee shall be three. Rule 15 provides as below: The Committee referred to in Ordinance 14 above shall consider: (a) the report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material; (b) the reply of the candidate, if any, to the notice; (c) the report of the examiner concerned if any, regarding the transcription of non-transcription of the unauthorised material of which the candidate was found in possession; (d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University; and (e) any other material. Rule 16 A provides as below: The Committee referred to in Ordinance 14 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that It has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 15 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter: A, (I) For possession of unauthorised material, or (II) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator, or (III) For communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. Cancellation, of the results of the candidate in the examination in question. 11. In Suresh Koshy George Vs. University of Kerala and Others, AIR 1969 SC 198 , it was held that the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by a procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions. 12. In Prem Parkash Kaluniya Vs. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by a procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions. 12. In Prem Parkash Kaluniya Vs. The Punjab University and Others, (1973) 3 SCC 424 , it was held in para 11 that it was for the Inquiry Committee to arrive at its own conclusion on the evidence before it and the same cannot be re-examined except on very limited grounds. The Supreme Court was considering the case of an examinee who was said to have copied at the examination. In para 8, it was held that the law on this point is well settled that an examinee must be adequately informed of the report he has to meet and given a full opportunity of meeting it. It was further said that in the very nature of things no hard and fast rule can be laid down and so long as the Court is satisfied that the opportunity which was afforded to the examinee was adequate and sufficient it will not interfere with any orders prejudicial to him which may have been made by the University authorities. A reference was made to the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad AIR 1965 SC 875 . In that case, it was held that an identity of the wrong answer given by the Respondent in that case with that of the other candidate bearing the consecutive roll number rendered the charge of the Respondent having applied unfair means highly probable and the findings of the Inquiry Committee based upon such possibilities and circumstantial evidence could not be said to be based on no evidence as in such matters direct evidence quite often cannot be available. It was further pointed out that in dealing with those cases the problem faced by such institution should be appreciated by the High Court and so long as the enquiry held was fair and afforded the candidate an opportunity to defend himself, the matter should not be examined with the same strictness as applicable to criminal case charges in the ordinary courts of law. 13. In Triambak Pati Tripathi Vs. 13. In Triambak Pati Tripathi Vs. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, AIR 1973 All 1 , it was held that the Committee while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the Examination Hall acts quasi judicially and the principles of natural justice applied to the proceeding before it. After referring to the cases of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad Vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. 1971 ALJ 1391 and Suresh Koshy George Vs. University of Kerala and Others, AIR 1969 SC 198 it was held by the Full Bench: A consideration of these authorities leads to the conclusion that the essential principles of natural justice that ought to be observed by the authority dealing with the case in quasi judicial manner are as follows: (1) the person whose rights are to be affected must be given notice of the case or the charges which he has to meet; (2) he must be given an opportunity to make a representation and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (3) the authority conducting the proceedings must not he biased and should act in good faith. In para 19 it was held: There is thus neither any justified inference nor any requirement of principle of natural justice which compels the Examination Committee to give a personal hearing to a candidate. 14. That being so, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 1959 SC 308 cannot be applied to the enquiry by the Examinations Committee. The Examinations Committee was entitled to adopt a procedure for informing a candidate of the charges levelled against him and about the material proposed to be used and for giving him opportunity of explanation through the Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee. 15. In para 20 reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Koshy's case (supra) and it was held that there was no violation of any principle of natural justice because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not brought to the notice of the examinee concerned before obtaining his explanation. 16. 15. In para 20 reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Koshy's case (supra) and it was held that there was no violation of any principle of natural justice because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not brought to the notice of the examinee concerned before obtaining his explanation. 16. In N.R. Misra v. Vice Chancellor Gorakhpur University AIR 1975 Allahabad 290 au enquiry was made against a candidate found in possession of unauthorised material while answering a question paper and he was debarred from appearing for the University Examination for two years. The pleas that principles of natural justice were violated because the Petitioner was not given a personal hearing or a copy of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer were repelled. 17. In view of the decisions by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and also the relevant rules in the Ordinance referred to above, we are unable to accept that principles of natural justice were violated because the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of cross-examining the officer of the Flying Squad or the invigilator or the Head Invigilator and he was not furnished a copy of the report of the Head Examiner regarding the unauthorised material pertaining to the syllabus of the question paper. The facts of the case were simple. The unauthorised material was found in the answer book of the Petitioner. He was immediately given notice in the prescribed form. He had opportunity of seeing unauthorised material and putting down his reply. He denied the recovery of the unauthorised material found in possession. He did not state in his reply that the unauthorised material was found from some other place other than his answer book. The report of the invigilator and the Head Invigilator was put down on the notice given to the Petitioner in the prescribed proforma and on which he gave his reply. We asked the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to examine the unauthorised material recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and satisfy us that it did not pertain to the syllabus of the question paper of the day. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not make any submission. We asked the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to examine the unauthorised material recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and satisfy us that it did not pertain to the syllabus of the question paper of the day. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not make any submission. In the facts of this case, the procedure adopted by the Unfair Means Committee was adequate and proper and reasonable opportunity was given to the Petitioner to put up his version. As there is no allegation of any bias against the officer of the Flying Squad or the invigilator or the Head Invigilator, it was not necessary to record the statement of any of them. It would have been an empty formality. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the reports made against the Petitioner. The circumstantial evidence in this case makes out a case of unfair means against the Petitioner. It cannot be said that the Unfair Means Committee arrived at a decision against the Petitioner in the absence of any evidence. The essential principles of natural justice as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Koshy (supra) and by this Court in the case of Triambak Pati Tripathi (supra) were observed and we are unable to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the contrary. 18. The cases of Manmohan Sharma v. University of Lucknow 1982 UP LB EG 118 and Pradip Singh Chauhan v. University of Lucknow 1983 Education Cases 534 are distinguishable. In both these cases there is no specific finding of guilt against the Petitioner. Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in this case shows that it was held that the Petitioner was guilty of the offence stated in Ordinance 1.6(A)(i). We have referred to the relevant provision above and it is apparent that a finding of guilt was recorded in this case. 19. In L.N. Mathur Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow and Others, AIR 1986 All 273 the Executive Committee of the Lucknow University did not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and made a reference to the Chancellor with reasons for dis-agreement. 19. In L.N. Mathur Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow and Others, AIR 1986 All 273 the Executive Committee of the Lucknow University did not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and made a reference to the Chancellor with reasons for dis-agreement. The Executive Committee recommended the appointment of the candidate at serial No. 2 in preference to the candidate at serial No. 1 as suggested by the Selection Committee and gave reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Selection Committee. The Chancellor agreed with the Executive Committee but did not give any reasons for doing so. It was held that the Chancellor while exercising jurisdiction u/s 31(8)(a) of the State Universities Act, exercised power of a quasi judicial nature and the matter should have been disposed of by a speaking order. The facts of that case were entirely different. There were conflicting reports of the Selection Committee and the Executive Committee and before accepting the report of the Executive Committee, the Chancellor bad to apply his mind and give reasons for agreeing with the Executive Committee. 20. In Allahabad University Teachers Association v. Chancellor of University 1983 UP LB EC 154 : 1982 Ed. Cases 327 there was a representation made to the Chancellor against the decision of the Vice Chancellor on the basis of the report of Unfair Means Committee. The Chancellor set aside the decision. It was held that there is no provision of law which requires the Unfair Means Committee to write a detailed judgment. The facts were not very complicated. The Committee held the fourth Respondent guilty of charge and awarded the punishment. The plea that the order was vitiated for want of reasons was repelled. 21. In a simple case of this nature, it was not necessary for the Unfair Means Committee to put down a detailed judgment and the order passed by the Committee cannot be said to be vitiated for want of reasons. A perusal of the order Annexure I to the supplementary counter affidavit shows that the Unfair Means Committee considered all the documents referred to in Ordinance 15 relating to the alleged use of unfair means and after having satisfied itself of the facts of the matter it held the Petitioner guilty of the offence stated in Ordinance 16. A(i). No more reason was required to be mentioned and the order is perfectly valid. 22. A(i). No more reason was required to be mentioned and the order is perfectly valid. 22. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same with costs.