9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the inquiry conducted by the Vice Chancellor. 2. Non-provision of the Inquiry Officer's report to the appellant before the show cause notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Inquiry Conducted by the Vice Chancellor: The appellant was a student at the Engineering College, Trichur, and was accused of malpractice during the April 1965 examination. The Vice Chancellor debarred him from appearing in any examination until April 1966. The inquiry into the malpractice was conducted by a committee formed by the University, which concluded that the appellant was guilty. The Vice Chancellor then appointed a retired Principal as the Inquiry Officer, who also found the appellant guilty. The appellant argued that the formal inquiry should have been conducted by an officer designated by the Principal of the College where he appeared for the examination, making the inquiry improper. The Supreme Court held that the Kerala University Act, 1957, and its statutes gave the Syndicate the power to delegate disciplinary control to the Vice Chancellor. The rules under which the Vice Chancellor acted were not statutory but merely for guidance, and thus, the Vice Chancellor did not contravene any law by appointing the Inquiry Officer himself. The court found no breach of natural justice principles, as the Inquiry Officer was impartial and qualified. The Divison Bench of the High Court rightly negatived the contention that the Vice Chancellor had breached any statutory rule or contravened any principle of natural justice. 2. Non-provision of the Inquiry Officer's Report to the Appellant: The appellant contended that the impugned order was invalid because he was not provided with a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before being asked to submit his explanation in response to the show cause notice. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been informed of the charges, the inquiry was held with due notice, and he was allowed to cross-examine witnesses and present his case. No rule required the Vice Chancellor to provide a copy of the report, and the appellant did not request it. The court emphasized that the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules and must be applied based on the case's facts and circumstances. The court cited several precedents to illustrate that the requirements of natural justice depend on the nature of the inquiry and the tribunal's rules. It concluded that the inquiry against the appellant was fair, and there was no breach of natural justice. The appellant's grievance about not receiving the report appeared to be an afterthought. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Vice Chancellor's actions were within legal bounds and did not violate principles of natural justice. The inquiry was fair, and the procedural requirements were met, justifying the disciplinary action taken against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
