Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 667 (CAL)

Avik Chakraborty v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-05-13

TAPEN SEN

body2011
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. IN this Writ Petition 12 Petitioners pray for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents and in particular, the appropriate authority of the West Bengal University of Technology, to withdraw the decision taken by the Board of Discipline on 6.10.2010. They have also prayed that they be promoted provisionally to the second year as students of the Siliguri Institute of Technology and be allowed to appear in the 2nd Year First Semester examinations. 2. THE Petitioners have stated that they are all students of the Siliguri Institute of Technology. They took admission in the College to pursue further education in the fulltime two years course of MBA for the Academic Year 2009-2011. At present, they are all students of MBA first year under the said Siliguri Institute of Technology (Respondent No. 8). The Petitioners prepared themselves for appearing in the second semester examinations and appeared in the said examinations in June, 2010. On 9.6.2010, the second semester examination of the MBA first year students was scheduled at the second half of the day and the final year examination of the BBA students was scheduled in the first half of the day. The Petitioners were all issued admit cards. 3. HOWEVER, on 9.6.2010 there was a disorder in the first half of the BBA Final year examinations amongst the students which continued till the second half of the day and as a consequence, of the said commotion the same affected the MBA students. As a result, the Petitioners, along with other MBA students, were restrained by the BBA students from entering into the campus and they were also restrained from appearing in the first year second semester examination. After a few altercations between the students, the examinations ultimately started but the BBA external students forcibly entered into the hall and started disturbing the female students by snatching away their answer-scripts and also resorted to other acts of indiscipline. The appearing male students of MBA first year protested against the frisking of female students by male students but ultimately the matter ended peacefully with the intervention of the local police and the District Magistrate, Siliguri. 4. The appearing male students of MBA first year protested against the frisking of female students by male students but ultimately the matter ended peacefully with the intervention of the local police and the District Magistrate, Siliguri. 4. AFTER completion of the examinations, all the MBA first year students including the Petitioners went to the summer training for two months but during the said training, they were informed over telephone that they should be present in the premises of the West Bengal University of Technology at Kolkata on 6.8.2010. All the students presented themselves at the campus when they were informed about their punishment i.e. cancellation of the entire examination of the second semester. This, according to the Petitioners, would mean lapse of one year and/or being ineligible for promotion to the second year due to what happened on 9.6.2010 as stated above. According to them, they are not in any way connected with whatever happened but they have been punished without giving any opportunity of hearing. The Petitioners have stated that subsequently by Memo dated 10.10.2010, the University informed the Principal/Director, Siliguri Institute of Technology about the decision taken by the Board of Discipline on 6.8.2010 and requested him to inform the students accordingly. Thereafter, Grade Cards of first year second semester examinations were issued declaring the Petitioners ineligible for promotion to the second year. 5. THE only point argued by Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the Authorities and/or the University has not followed the provisions of Examination Regulation 9.4 of the Regulations of the University. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the Board of Discipline is required to inform each student the charges against him and ask him to appear before the Board and furnish an explanation. Regulation 9.4 reads as follows : “9.4 Functions and responsibilities of the Board of Discipline: THE functions and responsibilities of the Board of Discipline shall be such as may be determined by the first Vice-Chancellor (as the power conferred upon him by Section 25(6) (f) of the Act.) All cases of breaches of discipline in connection with the University examination shall forthwith be reported with relevant documents to the Secretary of the Board of Discipline by the Officer-in-charge at the examination centres together with circumstances of the case. On receipt of reports of cases of breaches of discipline, the Secretary of the Board shall inform the student concerned of the charges against him and ask him to appear before the Board and furnish an explanation, verbally or in writing, with regard to the charge made against him. The student shall also be informed that in case he fails to appear before the Board and explain his conduct on the date fixed for the purpose of his case may be decided ex parte without further reference to him. If the Board holds that the charges referred to in the above paragraphs have been proved, it may recommend cancellation of the examination of the candidate concerned, or his debarment from appearing at a University examination for such period as it may deem fit, or both. All matters to be decided by the Board of Discipline shall be decided at a meeting of the Board: Provided that the Board may appoint one or more sub-committees consisting of three members who may not necessarily be the members of the Board. The sub-committee or sub-committees shall at the first instance scrutinize all the cases of breach of discipline and exonerate from the charges those students whom they consider eligible for such exoneration after preliminary inquiry and recommend suitable discipline of measures including cancellation of examination or debarment from appearing at any University examination for such period as it deems fit or both against whom there are prima-facie cases. Such students against whom disciplinary measures have been recommended shall be given an opportunity to defend their cases, if they so desire, after they are intimated about the punishment imposed on them. In such cases the sub-committee shall further investigate, interrogate and give them an opportunity to place their grievances before the Sub- Committee. In case such students fail to appear before the sub-committee on the fixed date and furnish any explanation, in writing with regard to the charges made against them, their cases shall be decided ex-parte by the sub-committee concerned without further reference to them. Any such decision relating to disciplinary action so recommended by the subcommittee concerned shall be referred to the Board of Discipline for approval provided that further two members shall from the quorum for a meeting of the sub-committee.? (Quoted) 6. THE Respondent Nos. Any such decision relating to disciplinary action so recommended by the subcommittee concerned shall be referred to the Board of Discipline for approval provided that further two members shall from the quorum for a meeting of the sub-committee.? (Quoted) 6. THE Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, being the West Bengal University of Technology and its Officers have filed an Affidavit-inopposition dated 1.4.2011 wherein they have stated that there was mass indiscipline on the date of the examinations amongst the students. They have stated that on 9.6.2010, due to very strict invigilation, some students, who could not indulge in mal-practices, created a brawl and indulged in extreme commotion as a result of which the Controller of Examinations (Officiating), West Bengal University of Technology sent a fax message to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri informing him that willing examinees of the second half were being obstructed from appearing. He was requested to look into the matter so that the willing examinees could appear. It has been stated that due to intervention of the Sub- Divisional Officer, the matter was brought under control, but the second half examinations which were scheduled for 2.30 P.M., could commence only at 3.45 P.M. Trouble had broken out in Hall Nos. 201, 205 and 206 where 46 BBA (Hon’s) second semester students and 25 MBA second semester students were allotted seats. The University received a fax message from the Supervisors giving a list of Roll Numbers of the students, who had indulged in mal-practices and it was complained that some of them had forced out the invigilators from Room Nos. 201, 205 and 206 and that a lot of photocopied materials were found on them. Thereafter, on the basis of complaints received, the Controller of Examinations wrote to the Principal of the Siliguri Institute of Technology informing him that the results of the students mentioned therein be kept on hold as there were reports against them regarding breach of discipline during the said examinations. He was further directed to inform the students that they should meet the Board of Discipline on 6.8.2010. He was further directed to inform the students that they should meet the Board of Discipline on 6.8.2010. According to these Respondents, the Members of the Board of Discipline, who were present, were the Vice Chancellor, West Bengal University of Technology as its Chairman, the Pro Vice Chancellor, the Director, Heritage Institute of Technology, the Principal, Kalyani Government Engineering College, Director, Academy of Technology, Inspector of Colleges and Controller of Examinations as the Member Secretary. These Respondents have brought on record the Decision/Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Discipline as Annexure “S-6”. These Respondents have stated that each of the students were individually called and then all of them, together. Questions were put to them in their individual capacity and in groups and they were given opportunity to defend their conduct. The BBA students individually and on group basis stated that they were not responsible for the commotion and it was in fact the MBA students, who had forced the Invigilators out of the examination hall. They said so in writing vide Annexure “S-4”. They also stated that the same process of interrogation was carried out in respect of MBA students. However, these students could not defend themselves and on the other hand, one of them, namely, Barun Mondal wrote a letter admitting his participation in the commotion and begged to be excused vide Annexure “S-5”. Thereafter, the board decided to impose the following punishments : i) MBA students be punished in terms of Rule 7 (Category-III Punishment) under Chapter VI of WBUT First Regulations. However keeping in mind the career of the student only entire semester exam is being cancelled. ii) BBA students being forced by the MBA students to participate in the said malpractices be punished in terms of Rule-7 (Category-I Punishment) under Chapter-VI of WBUT First Regulations.” (Quoted) 8. Upon a perusal of the Affidavit-in-opposition this Court notices that the point argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is not worthy of consideration inasmuch as the Rules of natural justice cannot be used as an unruly horse to come to the rescue of wrong doers. A bunch of students attempting to create an unhealthy atmosphere and commotion which resulted in a melee in which the Invigilators were ousted, cannot be looked upon with sympathy nor can they be given the aid of the principles of natural justice. A bunch of students attempting to create an unhealthy atmosphere and commotion which resulted in a melee in which the Invigilators were ousted, cannot be looked upon with sympathy nor can they be given the aid of the principles of natural justice. The decision of the Board of Discipline dated 6.8.2010 clearly shows that the students were heard for more than four hours and each of the students were asked individually to appear. They were interrogated, examined and cross-examined and then the Board of Discipline took a decision clearly within the parameters of Regulation 7 brought on record vide Annexure “S-8” which lays down, inter alia, that for such a misconduct (Category III), the recommended punishment is cancellation of entire semester examinations with debarment from appearing in any examination for one or two years excluding the current examination or rustication from the university for 1, 2 or 3 years. In fact, the Board of Discipline has taken a lenient view by keeping in mind the career of the students by only cancelling the entire semester exams. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied that no relief can be granted to the Petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no Order as to costs. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.