2016 (7) TMI 1674 - HC - Indian Laws

Adoption of unfair means in the examination - it is alleged that petitioner has used page No. 23 of the answer sheet as rough page with a view to reveal his identity to the examiners and therefore it was alleged that it is an unfair means - Alleged misconduct proved or not - HELD THAT - It has emerged from the record that the petitioner appeared in 3rd year of MBBS examination part II which was held during the period between 02.01.2016 to 12.01.2016 followed by practical examination which was taken between 17.01.2016 to 23.01.2016. However the result of the petitioner was not declared. Thereafter petitioner was intimated vide communication dated 15.02.2016 that his result was reserved and he was also asked to remain present before the Disciplinary Committee of the University on 24.02.2016. If we carefully examine the said intimation it is clear that in the said communication no allegation was levelled against the petitioner and he was also not informed that for what purpose he has to remain present before the Disciplinary Committee. Petitioner when he remained present on 24.02.2016 before the said committee on the very day he was informed to explain why he has done rough work on page No. 23 of the answer sheet. It was also orally alleged against him that he had done the same thing with a view to disclose his identity to the examiners. If the respondent-University was of the opinion that by doing rough work on page 23 the petitioner has disclosed his identity then the respondent-University ought to have conducted a detailed inquiry with regard to the said allegation and after inquiry if the said fact is proved against the petitioner then he could have been punished. However in the present case no such inquiry was held and on the basis of presumption and assumption the impugned order is passed by the respondent-University which is not permissible in the eye of law. In the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and therefore the respondent University ought not to have passed the impugned order. From the record it is further clear that in the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 the respondent-University has stated that the alleged misconduct against the petitioner is proved and therefore the order of penalty is passed against him. However it is not at all stated how the alleged misconduct is proved against the petitioner. There is no discussion or reference with regard to the same and therefore the said order is a non-speaking order. In the present case it is clear that no reason is given in the impugned order passed by the respondent-University that in which manner the allegation levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The respondent University cannot explain the reason by filing an affidavit annexing the report of the Disciplinary Committee. The learned Single Judge has also failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the report of the Disciplinary Committee. The learned Single Judge has committed an error and therefore the impugned judgment is required to be quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
2. Alleged Misconduct and Evidence
3. Nature of the Order Passed by the University
4. Opportunity to Defend and Disclosure of Report
5. Relevance of Cited Judgments

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant-petitioner argued that he was called by the Disciplinary Committee without any show cause notice, thus not being made aware of the charges against him. The petitioner was informed about the rough work on page 23 of his answer sheet only when he appeared before the Committee on 24.02.2016. He denied the allegations and contended that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was not informed of the specific charges beforehand and that no detailed inquiry was conducted by the University.

2. Alleged Misconduct and Evidence:
The petitioner admitted to using page 23 for rough work but denied any intention to reveal his identity to the examiners. The University presumed that the petitioner used rough work to disclose his identity, leading to the cancellation of his results and debarment from examinations. The court found that there was no evidence to support the University's assumption that the rough work was done to reveal identity. The court emphasized that the University should have conducted a detailed inquiry to substantiate the allegations.

3. Nature of the Order Passed by the University:
The impugned order dated 08.03.2016 by the University was deemed a non-speaking order as it did not provide reasons for the punishment imposed or how the alleged misconduct was proven. The court highlighted that the order lacked any discussion or reference to evidence, making it a non-speaking order, which is not permissible in law.

4. Opportunity to Defend and Disclosure of Report:
The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the Disciplinary Committee's report, which was only submitted during the petition's pendency. This deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to defend himself. The court noted that the University violated the principles of natural justice by not supplying the report and not providing adequate opportunity for defense.

5. Relevance of Cited Judgments:
The court examined various judgments cited by both parties. The Division Bench decision in Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma v. South Guj. University was relevant as it discussed the rule of "no evidence" and the necessity of probative value in evidence. The court found that the present case lacked evidence against the petitioner. The judgments cited by the respondents, including Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore and Prem Prakash Kaluniya v. Punjab University, were distinguished on facts. The court concluded that the University's decision was based on assumptions and lacked substantive evidence.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 by the University and the judgment dated 26.04.2016 by the learned Single Judge. The respondents were directed to declare the petitioner's result forthwith. The appeal was allowed and disposed of, and the related civil application was also disposed of.