Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1683 (PNJ)

Gagandeep Singh v. Punjab Technical University

2007-09-17

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ for quashing Order dated 18.8.2006, Annexure P-2 and order conveyed through letter dated 15.11.2006, Annexure P-5. 2. Vide Order, Annexure P-2, the Principal, Rayat Institute of Engineering and Technology, Railmajra, District Nawanshahar and the petitioner have been conveyed that the petitioner has been disqualified from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of two semesters. Further, the exam/result of the petitioner has been cancelled for all the subjects in which he had appeared in May-June, 2006. He has been debarred from attending classes and appearing in any subsequent examination for a period of two regular semesters. The petitioner, however, has been allowed to appear in examination in May/June, 2007 for which he was eligible in May/June, 2006. 3. Annexure P-5 is a letter dated 15.11.2006 vide which the petitioner has been informed that the Unfair Means Committee (for short, `the UMC) has found no new facts to take a different view from the one already taken. Appended therewith is also a report which indicates that vide two separate decisions dated 11.8.2006, the Committee had found the petitioner guilty in respect of charges, and penalty had been imposed as noticed above. The petitioner feeling dis-satisfied with the same had preferred an appear before the Vice- Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor had referred the matter to the UMC for fresh consideration. However, on fresh consideration, decision dated 11.8.2006 had not been modified and a report accordingly had been submitted to the Vice- Chancellor. 4. From the record, we find that two orders have been passed on 11.8.2006 conveyed by way of letter dated 18.8.2006 imposing the same penalty, however, with regard to two incidents viz. 29.5.2006 and 12.6.2006, under separate memos. 5. The facts, as they emerge from the available record, are that the petitioner was admitted to 4 years Bachelor of Technology (ECE) Course at the Rayat Institute of Engineering and Information Technology, Railmajra (near Ropar), District Nawanshahar, in the year 2004. The said Institute is affiliated to the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The 4th Semester examination for the aforesaid course commenced on 25.5.2006. The petitioner was taking the examination in the subject "Linear Control System" held on 29.5.2006. Just after 5 minutes of the examination having commenced, allegedly an incident took place. The said Institute is affiliated to the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The 4th Semester examination for the aforesaid course commenced on 25.5.2006. The petitioner was taking the examination in the subject "Linear Control System" held on 29.5.2006. Just after 5 minutes of the examination having commenced, allegedly an incident took place. Deepinder Kaur, who was the Supervisor at that point of time, noticed two pages of printed material underneath the desk of the petitioner. The possession of the same was taken and the matter was reported to respondent No. 3 i.e. Jaswinder Singh Dilawari, Superintendent, Examination Centre. 6. The case, as set up by the petitioner, is that the printed material did not belong to him. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is also that he was coerced to sign each page of the printed material and the answer sheet was taken away from him. Respondent No. 3 made it clear that unless the petitioner admits that the printed material had been taken from his possession, a case of unfair means would be thrust upon him. Be that as it may, the petitioner was asked to leave the examination hall. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examinations held on 31.5.2006, 2.6.2006, 5.6.2006, 9.6.2006 and 12.6.2006. 7. As per the pleadings in the petition, on each of the given dates, respondent No. 3 singled out the petitioner and would continue checking and searching the petitioner physically. On 12.6.2006, when the petitioner had entered the examination hall, he was asked to remove his shoes and socks. The petitioner objected, pleading that he was being humiliated. On this, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the incident of 29.5.2006 would, now be reported to the authorities and an unfair means case would be made. 8. A notice dated 13.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) was served on the petitioner whereunder he was required to appear before the Unfair Means Committee (U.M.C.) on 24.7.2006. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was not served any other notice. Notice (Annexure P-1) does not mention any incident relating to 29.5.2006. The petitioner joined the proceedings, whereupon he projected his case, as narrated above. The impugned order dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) imposing penalty on the petitioner was served upon him. 9. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was not served any other notice. Notice (Annexure P-1) does not mention any incident relating to 29.5.2006. The petitioner joined the proceedings, whereupon he projected his case, as narrated above. The impugned order dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) imposing penalty on the petitioner was served upon him. 9. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had a right to file an appeal against order dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-2), which was done within limitation i.e. on 14.9.2006. The appeal was not decided and the petitioner was constrained to file CWP 161 10 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of on 12.10.2006 with the directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within one month of receipt of certified copy of the order. The appeal has been dismissed and intimation given through covering letter dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P-5). 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been non-compliance of Regulation 6, which mandates reporting of the matter forthwith. It shows that the entire story has been cooked up and fabricated. The Superintendent (respondent No. 3) was biased against the petitioner. 11. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was complete non-compliance of Regulation 8, which requires the Superintendent to give a separate answer book to the petitioner to enable him to answer the remaining part of the question paper, which has not been done. The argument developed is that the Superintendent (respondent No. 3) having asked the petitioner to leave the examination hall on 29.5.2006, after the alleged incident, without giving him a fresh answer sheet, as required under Regulation 8, the authorities had no option but to decide the unfair means case against the petitioner so as to justify the action of the Superintendent (respondent No. 3). The delay in deciding the appeal also shows the conduct of the respondents and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, reflect that the authorities were prejudiced against the petitioner on account of which the career of the petitioner has been adversely affected. There had been no hearing of the appeal by the Vice-Chancellor in terms of Regulation 20, which has further caused prejudice. 12. There had been no hearing of the appeal by the Vice-Chancellor in terms of Regulation 20, which has further caused prejudice. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the University has produced Photostat copies of the record relating to the incident and has tried to establish that, indeed, printed material had been recovered from the petitioner on 29.5.2006. The printed material was relevant to the question paper. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Court is required to see whether the petitioner had indulged in any unfair means or not. Once the issue is answered in the affirmative, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence. The matter was reported late because of threat to the staff from the side of the petitioner and his father. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 14. Before we proceed any further, reference to the relevant regulations from Chapter XVI of "Prevention, Punishment and Procedure concerning cases of misconduct and use of unfair means in or in relation to examination" of the University is required to be made Regulations 6, 8 and 20 are reproduced for exact reference : "6. The Superintendent shall report to the Registrar without delay and on the day of occurrence if possible, each case where the use of unfair means in the examination is detected, giving details of the evidence and explanation of the candidate concerned on Form - Provided that in case of non-availability of Form_____, they may be reported on Photostate copy or Form____ or on a plain paper. Provided further that in exceptional circumstances the case an also be reported by the members of the flying squad of the special observer or the Local Controller of Examination or Centre Superintendent directly on a plan paper. Non-reporting of an unfair means shall be deemed as dereliction of duty making the defaulting member of the supervisory staff liable, for being debarred from all remunerative work of the University and further, dereliction takes place." xx xx xx xx xx 8. The answer book in which the use of unfair means is alleged shall be seized by the Superintendent, and the candidate concerned shall be permitted to answer the remaining part of the question paper on a separate answer book. The Superintendent shall forward both the answer books, along with his/her report in Form to the Registrar. The answer book in which the use of unfair means is alleged shall be seized by the Superintendent, and the candidate concerned shall be permitted to answer the remaining part of the question paper on a separate answer book. The Superintendent shall forward both the answer books, along with his/her report in Form to the Registrar. The candidate shall not forfeit his/her right to appear in the rest of the examination in subsequent papers. xx xx xx xx 20. An appeal against the decision of the Committee shall he to the Vice-Chancellor only if a candidate or a Branch dealing with Unfair Means Cases is, in a position to put up some new facts which are likely to be crucial in the sense that they might induce the committee to come to a decision other than the one taken by it. The candidate may go in for appeal within thirty, days from the date of receipt of information about the decision whereas the Branch may also initiate the cases, if any, within thirty days from the date of receipt of decision from the committee. In such cases, the Vice-Chancellor may order that such facts be reduced or writing and placed before the Committee for reconsidering the whole case. After reconsideration of the whole case by the Committee, the case shall be referred to the Vice Chancellor, who may either finally decide the case himself/herself or refer it to the Board of Governors for final decision, as he/she may deem proper." The sequence of events as disclosed from the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents shows that for the incident of 29.5.2006, as per Regulation 6, the Superintendent was required to report "without delay and on the day of occurrence". It was not done. Rather the report has been made on 12.6.2006. In fact, non-reporting of unfair means is deemed to be considered as dereliction of duty, and the supervisory staff under such circumstances, is liable for being debarred for all remunerative work of the University under the later part of Regulation 6. 15. The seriousness to adherence to the provisions of Regulation 6, therefore, is quite clear. There has, therefore, been a clear violation of Regulation 6. The reasons for violation are not borne out from the record. 15. The seriousness to adherence to the provisions of Regulation 6, therefore, is quite clear. There has, therefore, been a clear violation of Regulation 6. The reasons for violation are not borne out from the record. The explanation to delay given by the concerned official i.e. Jaswinder Singh Dilawari, respondent No. 3 is in the following terms :- "2. I started UMC procedure for making the case. The recorded statements of the Invigilator and the student who admitted that the slips belong to him and he was copying are attached herewith. Also the Deputy Supt. and Clerk has signed the statement. 3. Within half an hour of taking statements, the students brother Mr. Navdeep Singh Dhaliwal who is a lecturer in dept. of ECE at lovely institute entered the examination centre alongwith following staff members of RIEIT, Railmajra.......... All these persons pressurised me not to make the case saying that the brother of the student is their close friend and also his father is influential person in Ropar. I got pressurised and did not make any case saying that this student should never commit the same mistake in the remaining papers....." 16. The explanation particularly, in the face of Regulation 6, cannot be accepted. This explanation has come for the first time after the second alleged incident of 12th of June, 2006. As noticed in earlier part of the judgment with regard to two incidents of 29.5.206 and 12.6.2006, the proceedings were initiated together after 12.6.2006. 17. So far as the non-adherence to Regulation 8 is concerned, again we find that the Superintendent was required to allow the petitioner to answer the remaining part of the question paper on a separate answer book. Even this was not done and no such separate answer book was given to allow the petitioner to attempt remaining part of the question paper. There is no explanation given for violating the mandate contained in Regulation 8. 18. The petitioner preferred an appeal, admittedly, within time. It seems that the matter was referred by the appellate authority i.e. the Vice Chancellor to UMC for fresh consideration. On fresh consideration of both the matters, the Committee held that there was no ground to modify the earlier decision dated 11.8.2006. With these observations, the report was submitted to the Vice Chancellor. 19. It seems that the matter was referred by the appellate authority i.e. the Vice Chancellor to UMC for fresh consideration. On fresh consideration of both the matters, the Committee held that there was no ground to modify the earlier decision dated 11.8.2006. With these observations, the report was submitted to the Vice Chancellor. 19. As per Regulation 20 (later part), the Vice Chancellor was required to finally decide the case himself or refer it to the Board of Governors for final decision as he may deem proper. The Vice Chancellor has simply recorded his agreement with the decision of the UMC whereupon the impugned memo dated 15.11.2006 was sent to the petitioner. Be that as it may, there does not appear to be independent application of mind by the Vice-Chancellor i.e. appellate authority. 20. The incident of 12.6.2006 as reported by Shri Jaswinder Singh, Centre Superintendent, is that he had noticed the petitioner talking to another candidate. He called the other boy and enquired as to why they were talking. The said boy informed the Superintendent that the petitioner was asking the answer of a particular question. He further deposed that he filed the proforma and made the report against the petitioner and also recorded the statement of the Invigilator. Father of the petitioner forcibly entered the examination centre and misbehaved. The local controller, one Shri R.P. Singh came and snubbed the Superintendent for taking action and snatched the report and tore it. A brief report thereafter was prepared which had been forwarded for processing. 21. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. With regard to incident of 29.5.2006, in view of violation of Regulation 6 and Regulation 8, we are unable to uphold the action of the respondents in giving punishment to the petitioner. Once the Regulation requires the reporting of the matter without delay, adherence to the rules has to be asserted. We do not find any material on the record to show any circumstances which would give a reason or cause to the Superintendent not to report the matter immediately as provided by Regulation 6. 22. Under Regulation 8, a separate answer book was required to be given which has not been done. The purpose of introducing Regulation. We do not find any material on the record to show any circumstances which would give a reason or cause to the Superintendent not to report the matter immediately as provided by Regulation 6. 22. Under Regulation 8, a separate answer book was required to be given which has not been done. The purpose of introducing Regulation. 8 seems to be that in case the Unfair Means Committee decides the case in favour of the candidate or appeal filed by the candidate is allowed, the answers recorded on the separate answer book can be examined and marks given accordingly. No reason is forth coming on the record as to why the separate answer book was not given. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that once Regulation 8 had been violated, the authorities were bound to punish him to justify their action, cannot be considered without any force. We accordingly quash the punishment imposed on the petitioner with regard to the incident of 29.5.2006. 23. With regard to incident of 12.6.2006, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents. We however find that ends of justice would be met if the punishment awarded is reduced and the punishment to the extent that he is debarred from attending classes and appeasing in any subsequent examinations for a period of 2 semesters is upheld. 24. Accordingly, we modify the punishment and uphold the punishment to the effect that the petitioner is debarred from attending classes and appearing that the petitioner is debarred from attending classes and appearing in any examination for a period of 2 regular semesters. He would have a right to appear in examination in May/June 2007. We however direct that the examination/result of the petitioner for the subjects he had appeared in May/June 2006 be declared. 25. With the above observations/modifications in the punishment, this petition is dismissed.