Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1162 (PAT)

Pramod Singh Chandrawanshi v. State Of Bihar

2000-09-26

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. Universities all over the world are known to confer degrees, Honouris Causa on great and learned persons. But the Magadh University in this State has acquired the dubious distinction in that some of its officers actively joined in the conspiracy to give the degree of M.A., History to one Shikha Gupta (respondentno. 7) whose husband Anurag Gupta, I.PS. (respondent no. 6) was posted at the material time as Superintendent of Police, Gaya where the office of the University is situated. The University declared the aforesaid Shikha Gupta to have passed the Master degree examination in history for the session 1993-95, securing 1st position in 1st Class, even though out of the eight papers comprising the course, she appeared in the examination of Paper 1 only and was shown absent in the records of the Examination Centre in the remaining seven papers. If this was not all she was also given appointment, during the tenure of her husband at Gaya, as part time lecturer in Law in Anugrah Memorial College, Gaya, a constituent unit of the University. Needless to say that the appointment was made without any advertisement and with no consideration that she did not fulfil the minimum requirements for working as lecturer. The salary paid to her as part time lecturer of Law is shown to have been received, at least for some months under receipt signed by her husband. 2. This writ petition was filed challenging before this court the action of the University in declaring respondent no. 7 as having passed the M.A., History examination for the session 1993-95 in 1st Class and further its action in giving appointment to respondent no. 7 and one Jalil Akhatar Olai, respondent no. 8, as part time Lecturers in Law in A.M. College, Gaya. The writ petition furnished the relevant facts stating (in para 4 of the writ petition) the date on which respondent no. 7 was admitted to M.A., History course (1993-95) in Gaya College, Gaya at the fag end of the session. It further stated that though she did not have the required percentage of attendance she was allowed to appear in the University examination for M.A., History held in September, 1996; she was assigned Roll Gay No. 252 and her registration number was 37252 of 1993; her Centre of Examination was at A.N. College, Gaya. It further stated that though she did not have the required percentage of attendance she was allowed to appear in the University examination for M.A., History held in September, 1996; she was assigned Roll Gay No. 252 and her registration number was 37252 of 1993; her Centre of Examination was at A.N. College, Gaya. It was further stated (in paras 8 to 12 of the writ petition) that respondent no. 7 appeared only in the examination of Paper held on 5.9.1996 and she was absent in all the remaining seven papers the examinations of which were held between 16.9.1996 to 16.12.1996. These statements made in the writ petition were substantiated by bringing on record as annexures the following documents : (i) Photo stat copies of the attendance sheets of the Examination Centre in which respondent no. 7 was shown present only in the 1st paper and was shown absent in the remaining seven papers (Annexure 2 series); (ii) Record of the examination centre showing distribution of answer sheets to the examinees for the examination of papers II and III held on 16.9.1996 and 18.10.1996 respectively (Annexures 3 and 4); (iii) Certificate of the Centre Superintendent, A.N.College, Gaya testifying that the candidate with Roll Gay No. 252 was present for the examination of Paper I only and was absent in the remaining seven papers (Annexure 5). 3. It was further stated in the writ petition that it was in these facts and circumstances that the University gave respondent no. 7 the marks sheet, dated 25.3.1998 showing her as passed, in 1st Class, the M.A., History examination, 1995 held in September, 1996. A photo copy of the marks sheet granted to respondent no. 7 bearing signatures of the University authorities is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 4. It was further stated in the writ Petition that respondent no. 7 along with respondent no. 8 was appointed as parttime lecturer in law in A.M. College, Gaya. The minimum qualification for appointment as lecturer in law is either passing the LL.M. examination or having LL.B degree with seven years experience at the bar. It was stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 7 possessed neither of the two alternative qualifications and yet she was appointed as a lecturer in law even without any public advertisement or following a process of selection. It was stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 7 possessed neither of the two alternative qualifications and yet she was appointed as a lecturer in law even without any public advertisement or following a process of selection. It was alleged that the appointment was obtained by her husband, respondent no. 6 by abusing his official position and it was the result of a conspiracy between her husband and the officers of the University. It was further alleged that though she did not take any classes etc., she was paid her monthly salary and that payments of salary were made to her disregarding the objections raised by the Accountant and the Cashier of the College. It was also stated that the cheque for her salary for the period March to July, 1997 was paid against a receipt, dated 5.10.1997 signed by her husband, respondent no. 6. The relevant documents concerning her illegal appointment as lecturer in law are at Annexures 6 and 7. 5. This writ petition was filed on 24.8.1998 and was first taken up by this court on 14.9.1998 when notices were directed to be issued to the respondents. It took the University more than a year to tell this court on 30.11.1999 that on enquiry certain irregularities were detected in the matter but even at that stage the University expressed its inability to pass any order in this matter on the ground of pendency of this writ petition before this court. 6. On that date (30.11.1999) respondent no. 8 stated before the court that he was fully qualified to work as part time lecturer in law and his appointment on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis was made, without advertisement, as law teachers were required urgently to meet the crisis situation arising in A.M. College Gaya. It was further stated by him that as the result of the controversy created by this writ petition his appointment was also terminated and he had challenged the action of the University in terminating his appointment by filing a writ petition before this court. There-upon the bench hearing this case observed that the termination of the part time employment of respondent no. There-upon the bench hearing this case observed that the termination of the part time employment of respondent no. 8 being the subject matter of another writ petition all questions concerning him could be urged by the parties in that writ petition and no opinion about him was therefore required to (sicbe ?) expressed in this case. 7. If the University was slow in its response to this case respondents 6 and 7 tended to be far more distant and unresponsive to the notices issued by this court as also by the University. Respondent no. 6 appeared after about two years from the date of issuance of the first notice to him and only when an indignant Advocate General took the matters in his own hand. The manner in which respondents 6 and 7 tried to evade and avoid the notices issued by this court as also by the University is taken note of in the order dated 28.6.2000 and there is no need to repeat those details here. 8. Suffice it to note that though on his own admission both respondent no. 6 and his wife, respondent no. 7 came to learn about this case being pending before this court in January, 1999, no steps were taken for over a year and half either to appear before this court or to submit their reply to the allegations made against them. It was reported to this court that respondent no. 6 had gone on central deputation and was posted in the Special Protection Group for the Prime Minister. It was suggested that finding himself within the cocoon of the Prime Ministers security he might be under the self deception that he was beyond the reach of the law. If that were so, respondent no. 6 was clearly mistaken. This court when, it so desired, got him appearing before it within a week of passing the order. 9. On appearing respondents 6 and 7 filed their show cause giving many excuses, all of them without substance for not appearing earlier. The show cause then went on to tell the court that they would not give any reply to the allegations made against them because doing so might compromise their defence in the criminal case. The reference was to what can be described as an apology of a first information report filed by the University. The show cause then went on to tell the court that they would not give any reply to the allegations made against them because doing so might compromise their defence in the criminal case. The reference was to what can be described as an apology of a first information report filed by the University. Later in this judgment there will be occasion to examine this first information report more closely but here it may only be observed that that first information report was designed more to protect rather than expose the wrong doers. The first information report did not disclose even the basic facts of the case nor did it cite any one as accused; it was against unknown. And respondent nos. 6 and 7 used it precisely for the purpose it was intended to be used, that is, trying to evade the main issues coming under scrutiny before this court. But the game the respondents are trying to play together is quite clumsy and transparent. And this court has no difficulty in seeing through their ploy. This court is also satisfied that respondents 6 and 7 declined to give any reply because they had nothing to offer in reply to the allegations made against them. This court is further of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the pose of bluster taken by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 6 and 7 and his persistent assertion that he had advised them not to give any reply to the allegations made against them was sadly out of place. 10. Having regard to the order which is proposed to be passed in this matter, we do not wish to say here anything further about the two respondents except that respondent no. 6 appears to be a person who is unable to resist small temptations coming his way. 11. Turning now to examine the role of the University in this matter, one finds the situation even more distressing. The grant of a fraudulent mark sheet/degree of M.A., History to respondent no. 7 was sufficiently bad. What is far more reprehensible is the manner in which the University seems to be handling this matter after the facts came to light. Turning now to examine the role of the University in this matter, one finds the situation even more distressing. The grant of a fraudulent mark sheet/degree of M.A., History to respondent no. 7 was sufficiently bad. What is far more reprehensible is the manner in which the University seems to be handling this matter after the facts came to light. Now that this case has dragged on for about two years, it appears to this court that the University authorities are either unwilling or incapable to identify the culprits and take penal action against them and further to take remedial measures to restore the peoples confidence in the process of examinations held by the University. 12. But before proceeding to examine the manner in which the University is handling this matter after the facts came into the open, it would be appropriate to have a clear view of the modus operandi for giving respondent no. 7 the degree as that would also indicate the extent of involvement of the officers of the University in this affair. 13. The degree was given to respondent no. 7 evidently by fraudulent means. This is the inevitable conclusion in the light of the materials finally coming before this court; it is another matter that the University produced the relevant documents bit by bit and also, it appeared to this court, quite grudgingly. From the relevant materials it appears that respondent no. 7 appeared for the examination of Paper I held on 5.9.1996 and her answer sheets along with the answer sheets of all the other examinees of the examination centre (A.N.College, Gaya) were sent by the Centre Superintendent to the Examiner of that paper under a single despatch memo. Thereafter, she never appeared at the examination centre for the examination of the remaining seven papers and she was shown absent in the attendance sheets for those examinations. For papers II to VII the answer sheets of examinees present for the examinations were sent by the Centre Superintendent to the examiners of the respective papers under despatch memos on each day those examinations were held but as respondent no. 7 was absent in those papers the despatch memos under which the answer sheets did not include her answer sheets. 7 was absent in those papers the despatch memos under which the answer sheets did not include her answer sheets. It, however, appears that she was clandestinely supplied with blank answer sheets of the University which were obviously stolen from the University office and taken out unauthorisedly. On the answer sheets given to her, examinations of papers II to VII were written out side the examination hall (when and where are yet to be disclosed). Then someone sent her answer-sheets for papers II to VII to the respective examiners under separate despatch memos each containing a single answer sheet. According to the Centre Superintendent, A.N. College, Gaya, those despatch memos were not prepared by him and the signatures thereon were not his. Curiously, every examiner accepted the single answer sheet of respondent no. 7 and no one seems to have wondered why a single answer-sheet was coming under a separate despatch memo and not as part of the main bundle from any examination centre. Each examiner corrected and marked the answer sheets of respondent no. 7 and the mark sheets were sent to the University. The rest was routine. The marks of respondent no. 7, like all other examinees, were tabulated and an official marksheet, duly signed by the University authorities was issued to her showing her pass, in 1st Class, in M.A. History examination. 14. The answer sheets of respondent no. 7 have been produced before this court. The printed numbers on these answer sheets are not in any sequence, either ascending or descending but those are at random. From the writings in the answer-sheets for the different papers it cannot be said definitely that all the answer-sheets were written by the same person and there is some ground for the suspicion that the answer-sheets of the different papers were written by different persons. 15. From the way the scheme was worked out, it is plain and clear that respondent no. 7 was being actively aided and abetted by persons inside the University or closely associated with the University. 16. These are some of the facts as appearing from the materials brought before the court. Now it remains to be examined how did the University respond on these facts coming to light. 17. 7 was being actively aided and abetted by persons inside the University or closely associated with the University. 16. These are some of the facts as appearing from the materials brought before the court. Now it remains to be examined how did the University respond on these facts coming to light. 17. In this case, the University has filed one counter affidavit and five supplementary counter affidavits; the first counter affidavit and three supplementary affidavits are affirmed by the Ircharge, Legal Section who in all probability is a Class III employee of the University. The Universitys affidavits do not evince any sense of dismay on such shocking facts coming to light. It rather seems that for the University the matter does not warrant more than a cavalier and passing attention. 18. On 30.11.1999 (after more than a year of issuance of notice) the court was told that on the basis of an enquiry conducted by it the University had detected certain irregularities and wished to pass appropriate orders in this matter but refrained from doing so in view of the pendency of this case. This court then made it clear that the University was free to pass an order in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry committee. On 19.1.2000 the 2nd supplementary affidavit was filed bringing on record the proceedings of the examination board of the University held on 13.12.1999 and a notification, dated 16.12.1999 cancelling the result declaring respondent no. 7 to have passed the MA History examination. The University also made promise of faking appropriate action against persons involved in this matter subject to the direction of this court. On 19.1.2000, this court passed the following order : "We, hereby, direct the University to take appropriate action against the persons found involved in this episode with a view to facilitate the conferment of M.A. degree on respondent no. 7. The University will take appropriate action and submit a report before this court after two months stating the action taken by it and the persons against whom such action had been initiated." (emphais added) 19. 7. The University will take appropriate action and submit a report before this court after two months stating the action taken by it and the persons against whom such action had been initiated." (emphais added) 19. For three months thereafter, nothing happened and on 20.4.2000 this court had to pass the following order : "This court, by order dated 19.1.2000, directed the University to take appropriate action against the persons found involved in the episode with a view to facilitate the conferment of M.A. degree on respondent no. 7 and to submit a report before this court the action taken in this regard, but no such report has been filed so far..... "It is made clear that if by the afore-mentioned time, the report will not be submitted before this court about the action having been taken pursuant to the order dated 19.1.2000, then this court will consider the desirability of issuing necessary directions for lodging a case against the persons involved in the episode as well as against other persons, who are trying to shield thepersons involved in the episode." (emphasis added) 20. Nothing happened even thereafter and even the notification cancelling the result of respondent no. 7 was not given any wide circulation or publicity. In this regard, it may be noted that at least on half a dozen occasions this court made pointed observations that simply issuing the cancelling notification and keeping it hidden in the Universitys closet was meaningless because it would leave respondent no. 7 free to use the marks sheet given to her by the University in an unsuspecting world, specially out-side the State where she was at present residing. If was further pointed out that in order to give any meaning to the cancelling notification it was imperative to give it wide circulation and publicity; the cancelling notification should be sent to different Universities in the country and should also be published in news papers with wide circulation so as to make it difficult for respondent no. 7 to use the marks sheet given to her by the University. All those observations by the court seem to have fallen on deaf ears and till date no action was shown to have been taken in compliance with the courts observations. 21. On 18.5.2000 the University produced some of the records relating to this matter. 7 to use the marks sheet given to her by the University. All those observations by the court seem to have fallen on deaf ears and till date no action was shown to have been taken in compliance with the courts observations. 21. On 18.5.2000 the University produced some of the records relating to this matter. Part of the records produced by the University was not in the original but was in the form of photo-stat copies of the original. The court then insisted on production of the original records. On the next date (19.5.2000) the Vice Chancellor of the University filed an affidavit stating that the original records could not be located. As the court was shortly to be closed for summer vacation, the case was adjourned to June 27, 2000. On that date the relevant original documents were produced by the University in court and then it transpired that some of the photo stat copies filed earlier by the University did not match with their original and there was interpolation atleast in the copy of one of the original documents. This anomaly was noted in the order, dated 28.6.2000. The relevant passage is as follows : "It is pointed out by the petitioner from the record produced by the University that initially only carbon copies of the record was produced by the University. On a certain day of the examination in context an insertion has been made on the tabulation sheet on the carbon copy as if to show that the candidate with Roll no. 252 appeared. This should be so recorded in the original, but the interpolation is missing on the original. "The question again arises, who inserted roll no. 252 on a copy which is being represented as taken from the original but the original does not mention this roll number." 22. In course of hearing, it further became evident that the University did not intend to produce all the relevent materials and it was actually withholding an important report on this matter from this court. On 28.6.2000 Mr. 252 on a copy which is being represented as taken from the original but the original does not mention this roll number." 22. In course of hearing, it further became evident that the University did not intend to produce all the relevent materials and it was actually withholding an important report on this matter from this court. On 28.6.2000 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought it to the notice of the court that even before this writ petition was filed on 24.8.1998, this matter had come in the knowledge of the Chancellor who had asked one Sri A.P. Choud-hary, retired District & Sessions Judge, (Formerly Registrar General of this court) to hold an enquiry in this matter and Sri Choudhary had long ago submitted his report to the Chancellor indicting the University and some of its officials in connection with this matter. Till then it had never occurred to the University to bring that report before this court and it was only after the petitioner had produced before this court some extracts from the report of Mr. Choudhary that the University brought on record the enquiry report submitted by Sri A.P. Choudhary. in the report, it is expressly stated that the attitude and the response of the University authorities towards the enquiry was wholly uncooperative, if not plainly obstructionist; and this was so when the enquiry was ordered by the Chancellor who is the Governor of the State. Due to the complete non-cooperation shown by the concerned officers of the University the enquiry was unable to pin point the culprits. The enquiry report, however, records that one Dr. Ramdeo Yadav, then Examination Controller had utterly failed to control his office; and that he did not produce before Sri Choudhary the answer-sheets of respondent no. 7 and many other relevant documents. The enquiry report also found the invisible hands of one Kantesh Kumar, Superintendent of Magadh University Press, Bodh Gaya in this sordid affair. 23. Sri Ramdeo Yadav has since then been taken away from his position as Controller of Examination and put back to his substantive post as Professor of Mathematics in the Post Graduate Department, Magadh University. No action is reported to have been taken against Kantesh Kumar, the Superintendent of Magadh University Press, Bodh Gaya. 24. 23. Sri Ramdeo Yadav has since then been taken away from his position as Controller of Examination and put back to his substantive post as Professor of Mathematics in the Post Graduate Department, Magadh University. No action is reported to have been taken against Kantesh Kumar, the Superintendent of Magadh University Press, Bodh Gaya. 24. Surely, this is not the best way for the University to restore the peoples faith in its examination process. 25. The last straw for this court, however, is the so called first information report lodged by the University in connection with this matter. It appears that under pressure from this court, the University finally decided to lodge a first information report but the manner in which the first information report was drawn up and filed in the police station makes it evident that it was yet another ploy to shield and protect the wrong doers. 26. On 22.6.2000 the Vice Chancellor passed an order diluting asmuch as possible the findings and the report submitted by Sri A.P.Choudhary. On the basis of the Vice Chancellors order, the Controller of Examination wrote a memorandum, dated 24.6.2000 to the Officer Incharge, Magadh University Police Station, enclosing the Vice Chancellors order. The memorandum addressed to the Officer Incharge reads as follows : "Sir, The Vice Chancellor has been pleased to order the Controller of Ex-minations, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya to lodge an F.I.R. against unknown person in the case of Shushree Shikha Gupta Roll Gay No. 252 of P.G. History Examination, 1996. The order of the Vice Chancellor is attached herewith. The records which are available with the University will be made available to you on demand for further course of action and investigation." 27. It may be noted that as intended by the University this F.I.R. lay dormant and no action was taken on it for two months. But it came in handy to respondents 6 and 7 and it gave them the excuse for not filing any reply to this writ petition in this court on the plea that that might compromise their defence in the criminal case. 28. But it came in handy to respondents 6 and 7 and it gave them the excuse for not filing any reply to this writ petition in this court on the plea that that might compromise their defence in the criminal case. 28. It will also not be out of place to record here that the Advocate General on examining the F.I.R. got so disgusted that he made a statement before this court that the State Government would have no objection if this F.I.R. was quashed so as to institute a proper case against the accused for a meaningful investigation and a fair prosecution of the accused. 29. In view of the aforesaid, this court has come to the regrettable conclusion that the University is unwilling to allow the full facts concerning this matter from coming to light and is also trying to protect and shield the wrong doers, some of whom may be its officials. 30. As much as the University appears to be unwilling to let the full facts come to light, this court is determined,to get to the bottom of this matter and to see that the wrong doers should face the legal consequences of their deeds. 31. The use of unfair means in examinations in this State by students either in isolation or en masse is widely reported. Outside the State we are regularly made to hear unkind jokes to the deep mortification of our regional pride about the state of education and the process of examination in this State. It is also not unknown that candidates from this State with high marks are turned away in job interviews outside the State due to the persisting bias against the examination process here. This court being fully aware of these facts and circumstances had refused to remain a silent spectator and had intervened to restore the purity of the examination process. A bench of this court comprising Chief Justice D.P. Wadhwa (as His Lordship then was) and Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal (As His Lordship then was) in CWJC No. 10256/1995 (Dhirendra Kumar and others V/s. State of Bihar) gave detailed and stringent directions to check the use of unfair means by the students and to ensure the holding of fair examinations in this State. And those directions had very salutory effect too. 32. Justice B.N. Agrawal (As His Lordship then was) in CWJC No. 10256/1995 (Dhirendra Kumar and others V/s. State of Bihar) gave detailed and stringent directions to check the use of unfair means by the students and to ensure the holding of fair examinations in this State. And those directions had very salutory effect too. 32. But all the efforts made by the students to use unfair means in examinations is passe in the light of facts of this case. In this case to the shock and dismay of the court the University itself is found indulging in unfair practices and subverting its own examination process from within. In fact the acts of omission and commission by the University authorities are far more serious than simply using unfair means in examination; these plainly constitute culpable offences under the Penal Code and other criminal laws. The episode of granting the spurious degree to the wife of a Police officer was sufficiently bad. But what is worse and far more distressing to the court is the recalcitrance show by the University authorities in taking any remedial measures to correct the situation. Metaphorically speaking, the University authorities stand before this court with their pants down. But they do not show any sign of remorse or shame. Instead of trying to cover their nudity they seem to be trying to cover up those responsible for their nudity. 33. In these circumstances this court cannot allow this matter to flounder any longer. In the order, dated 20.4.2000 it was made clear that in case no action was taken by 18.5.2000 in compliance with the earlier direction of this court, dated 19.1.2000 "then this court will consider the desirability of issuing necessary directions for lodging a case against the persons involved in the episode as well as against other persons who are trying to shield the persons involved in the episode". I am fully satisfied that the omissions on the part of the University during the past months leave this court with no option but to make good what was stated in the order, dated 20.4.2000. This court, therefore, proceeds to direct the C.I.D. to institute a criminal case in connection with this matter. This court further nominates Mr. Manoj Nath, I.G., C.I.D. who will be in over all charge of the investigation of this case. This court, therefore, proceeds to direct the C.I.D. to institute a criminal case in connection with this matter. This court further nominates Mr. Manoj Nath, I.G., C.I.D. who will be in over all charge of the investigation of this case. The officer, thus, nominated by the court will have a proper F.I.R. drawn up on the basis of the facts stated in this order in the light of the materials on record. He will have the case thoroughly investigated by officers of his choice and under his direct supervision. The investigation will be made into all aspects of the matter with the object to fix the culpability of the persons who acted, aided or abetted in the matter of the grant of fraudulent mark sheet/ degree by the University to respondent no. 7. The investigation will examine the role of all concerned without being influenced by the high position occupied by any one of them either currently or formerly. It is hoped and expected that the investigation will be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the nominated officer. In the meanwhile, the nominated officer will submit interim reports to this court personally and under his own signature. The first interim report should reach this court so as to be examined when this case is next listed for orders on October 31, 2000. 34. The Registrar General is directed to serve upon the nominated officer, Shri Manoj Nath, I.G., C.I.D. without any delay a copy of this order along with a copy of the complete brief including the order sheet. The Registrar General will also hand over to the nominated officer all the original documents and the photo stat copies of relevant documents lying on the record of this case after having an inventory made of the same and after obtaining a receipt for the same from the nominated officer. 35. In view of this order no action will be taken on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 24.6.2000 lodged by the University at the Magadh University Police Station. 36. Put up this case on October 31, 2000. Ravi S.Dhavan 37 I agree.