1969 (1) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of university decision to cancel exam result and debar student for alleged malpractice in possession of unauthorized material during exam.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a student, challenged the university's decision to cancel his exam result and debar him due to alleged malpractice during the Pre-University Examination in 1968. The charges included possession of unauthorized material and using it to answer exam questions, which violated the university rules. The petitioner denied the charges, claiming the invigilator had a grudge against him and fabricated the evidence. The petitioner requested to cross-examine the invigilator, but the university denied the request.

The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice required the right to cross-examine witnesses, citing a Supreme Court case and an English decision. However, the court clarified that the right to be heard does not necessarily include the right to cross-examine, and the rules of natural justice vary based on statutory provisions. The court emphasized that quasi-judicial bodies like the Malpractices Enquiry Committee are not bound by court procedures but must provide a fair opportunity for the party to explain the allegations.

The Enquiry Committee's procedure was found to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's defense that the incriminating material was planted by the invigilator was refuted with evidence showing discrepancies between the invigilator's handwriting and the material. The petitioner's confession to the Centre Superintendent further weakened his defense. The Enquiry Committee's report confirmed the use of the incriminating material in the exam answers, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's exam result and his debarment from future exams.

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the principles of natural justice were followed, and the petitioner's false defense did not warrant summoning the invigilator for cross-examination. The decision to cancel the exam result and debar the petitioner was upheld, and no costs were awarded. Judge Bala Krushna Patra concurred with the judgment.