Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 96 (ALL)

ABHAY MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-01-15

RAKESH TIWARI

body2008
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents who has produced the original paper book of the petitioner before the Court. ( 2 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated on charge of being in possession of printed copying material which might have been used for cheating. The petitioner was appearing in the subject of ancient history B. A. Ilird examination as a regular candidate on 21. 4. 2007. He is alleged to have caught by Flying Squad with four reproduced photostat pages from his pocket said to be pertaining to Illrd paper of the subject of Ancient History. ( 3 ) NOTICE dated 24. 4. 2007 was issued to him on charge of "caught by Flying Squad with four reproduced Photostat pages from his pocket. " ( 4 ) ON issuance of notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24. 4. 2007 that when he appeared in the examination on 20. 4. 2007 the Flying Squad had abused him and when nothing was found in his possession he was threatened to see dire consequences as the examination has not ended. This harassment according to him was meted to him as he was actively and genuinely involved in welfare of the students being a student leader. He further claims that on 21. 4. 2007 he was again searched and the aforesaid four reproduced pages are said to have been found in his possession though he claim innocence about the same. He also claims that he had only made oral complaint to the in-charge present in the class room but had not made any written complaint to any of the authorities about this action of the Flying Squad but only to the class Invigilator who was not examined by the University in the enquiry, in his explanation the petitioner also averred that the class Invigilator had on his oral complaint assured that he will give evidence on his behalf in this regard in the enquiry. ( 5 ) THE explanation of the petitioner is as under:- ( 6 ) THE Expert Examiner reported using of unfair material by the candidate. The examination of 2007 of the petitioner of B. A. III has been cancelled as a consequence thereof also debarring the petitioner from appearing in 2008 examination. ( 5 ) THE explanation of the petitioner is as under:- ( 6 ) THE Expert Examiner reported using of unfair material by the candidate. The examination of 2007 of the petitioner of B. A. III has been cancelled as a consequence thereof also debarring the petitioner from appearing in 2008 examination. The report/note of the Expert Examiner and the Dean of the University on it is as under:- Expert examiner reports UPM material used by candidate. Exam of 2007 cancelled and debarred from 2008 exam. Sd/- Illegible 26. 6. 2007. " ( 7 ) I have perused the original copy of the petitioner and the printed material. The printed materials which are said to have been found in possession of the petitioner are as under:- ( 8 ) COPIED portion which is said to have been reproduced by the petitioner in the answer book in the opinion of the subject expert and inserted by him is as under:- ( 9 ) FROM perusal of the above it is clear that the printed material which is said to have been used by the candidate has not in fact been used and the marked portion by the Expert Examiner in the answer given by the candidate does not tally with it at all. The petitioner has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this matter by the University on account of his student union activities. The Court is not making any comments upon this observation that the petitioner was not charged for copying of the printed material. ( 10 ) ONE year of the petitioner has already been wasted. He has been undergone adequate and sufficient punishment for charge of possession of material. As regards charge of copying from the printed material is concerned it has neither been levelled against him nor any charge has been proved or made out from the original copy of the petitioner produced by the University. The report of the expert subject examiner is not correct and is without basis. ( 11 ) IF a student is not particularly changed for copying from the printed material he cannot be held to be guilty of the said charge and punished for it, for this would be in violation of principles of natural justice. He cannot be expected to defend himself against an imaginary or nonexisting charge nor levelled against him. ( 11 ) IF a student is not particularly changed for copying from the printed material he cannot be held to be guilty of the said charge and punished for it, for this would be in violation of principles of natural justice. He cannot be expected to defend himself against an imaginary or nonexisting charge nor levelled against him. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the impugned order is quashed to the extent it debars the petitioner for one year and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a consequence, the petitioner will be permitted to appear in the examination 2007-2008 by the University after allowing him to complete all formalities for the examination. Petition Allowed. .