9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks of the candidates appearing at that centre examined by a screening committee consisting of experts in the subject. Members of the screening Committee examined the answer books of various candidates and reported that the petitioner along with other candidates was suspected to have used unfair means in answering not only question No. 2 of the Science Second paper but also in answering question No. 1 of the Science 1st paper. The Examinations Committee then withheld the result of the petitioner and other candidates suspected of using unfair means and resolved that art 'on the spot Enquiry Sub-Committee' be set up to enquire into the matter in detail and to submit its report before the Examinations Committee. It also framed charge-sheets mentioning the material which indicated the use of unfair means by the petitioner and other candidates. Copies of the two charge sheets given to the petitioner have been filed as annexures 'A' and 'B' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board. These charge-sheets further required the petitioner and others to explain why proceedings under Rule 2 (1) of Chapter VI of the Board's calendar be not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., 1971 All LJ 1391, in support of his contention that it was incumbent upon the Examinations Committee to itself afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard both in regard to the conclusions recorded by the Sub-Committee as also the punishment proposed to be awarded and that if this was not done the principles of natural justice were violated and the order punishing the petitioner deserved to be quashed. The Bench hearing the petition felt that these observations made in Prabhat Kumar's case required reconsideration and therefore referred the case for decision by a Full Bench. This a how the case has come up for decision before us. 5. In the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Ghanshiam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 it has been held that the Examinations Committee while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in examination hall acts quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd learned friend Lord Loreburn. In Board of Education v. Rice, 1911 AC 179 he laid down that, in disposing of a question which was the subject of an appeal to it, the Board of Education was under a duty to act in good faith, and to listen fairly to both sides, inasmuch as that was a duty which lay on every one who decided anything. But he went on to say that he did not think it was bound to treat such a question as though it were a trial ..... 10. Again in the case of Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd., (1958) 2 All ER 579, Lord Harman, observed:-- What, then are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made. Secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case, and thirdly of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith, I do not think that there really is anything more. 11. In the case of AIR 1962 SC 1110, while dealing with the scope of applicability of principles of natural justice in proceedings before an authority which is required to act in a quasi-judicial manner, learned Judges of the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of explaining them and putting forward and substantiating his own version. Rules of natural justice not being embodied rules. It is open to the authority concerned to evolve its own procedure for acquainting the person concerned with the charges and the material on which they are founded, and also fos affording him an opportunity of explaining those charges and putting forward his case. The procedure will necessarily vary with the facts, circumstances and nature of the case, constitution of the authority dealing with it and the rules under which it functions. 14. Let us now examine the complaint of the petitioner regarding the violation of principles of natural justice in this case. His first complaint is that the Examinations Committee obtained his explanation through a sub-committee instead of itself requiring him to explain the allegations made against him. In order to substantiate this complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 1971 All LJ 1391. In that case, the result of Prabhat Kumar, who appeared in the High School Examination of the Board in the year 1970, was cancelled after following a procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the sub-committee and also punishment to be awarded. There is no controversy that this was not done in the present case and we have no doubt that the impugned order of the Board whereby the examination of the petitioner has been annulled and he has been debarred from appearing at the 1971 Examination must be quashed. 15. In Nageshwar Rao's case, AIR 1959 SC 308, the Supreme Court had to consider whether the objections filed by the transport operators against a scheme prepared and published under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act had been properly disposed of. Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act required that the State Government shall decide the matter after giving a personal hearing to the objectors. In this case personal hearing was given by a Secretary to Government and the Minister passed the order approving the scheme. This procedure was condemned by the Supreme Court in these words:-- This divided responsibility Js destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. It must be remembered that these words were spoken in respect of the statutory right of personal hearing conferred by the rules and not in respect of any right of hearing flowing from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r production of materials in support of its explanation, principles of natural justice do not require that the State Government should ask the Board to appear for a personal hearing and to produce materials in support of the explanation. In the absence of any, demand by the Board of the nature indicated above, we cannot agree with the High Court that merely because the State Government did not call upon the Board to appear for a personal hearing and to produce material in support of its explanation it violated the principles of natural justice. 18. Again in the case of Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash AIR 1971 SC 1093, learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed as follows: -- Article 217(3) does not guarantee a right of personal hearing. Nor is a personal hearing a necessary incident of rules of natural justice. Except in proceedings in Courts, a mere denial of opportunity of making an oral representation will not, without more, vitiate the proceeding. A party likely to be affected by a decision entitled to know the evidence against him and to have an opportunity of making a representation. He, however, cannot claim that an order made without affording him an opportunity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention and held that there was no violation of any principle of natural justice merely because the report of the enquiry officer was not brought to the notice of the examinee concerned before obtaining his explanation. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the case of Suresh Kumar v. Punjab University, AIR 1966 Punj 152 at p. 154. In this case during disciplinary proceedings against Suresh Kumar the matter was enquired into by the Assistant Registrar, Punjab University. During enquiry proceedings the Assistant Registrar after perusing the report of the Head Examiner in the English paper and the statement of the petitioner, referred the matter to an expert for his considered opinion. This report was adverse to Suresh Kumar who was never informed about it Relying upon the expert opinion, the Standing Committee punished the examinee. The Punjab High Court held that, in the circumstances, the order passed, relying upon the expert opinion, could not be upheld. It appears that in this case the Standing Committee relied upon the opinion of the expert as a piece of evidence indicating that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means in the examination. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner was provided an opportunity to explain the allegations. He gave whatever explanation he thought proper and made a declaration that he had nothing further to say in the matter. In the charge-sheet his attention had been invited to the fact that the material that was being brought to his notice indicated that he was guilty of using unfair means and that he was required to show cause why action under paragraph (L) of Chapter VI of the Board's Calendar be not taken against him. The petitioner gave his explanation and said that he had nothing further to say in the matter. It will thus be seen that the procedure adopted gave ample opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations made against him and to show cause against the punishment which could be meted out to him under paragraph 2 (L) of Chapter VI of Board's calendar. Rules of natural justice do not require, as do the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution; the giving of an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment; they merely required the affording of an opportunity to explain or meet the charges or allegations levelled against the person concerned. But in the present case the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority concerned. Its jurisdiction is limited, and it is true, that if the order in question is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court may quash it; but the conclusion that the order in question is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify that conclusion. In the case before us, so far as question No. 1 of Science first paper was concerned, it was brought out that the petitioner had found out the square root of 45.5625 as 6.75 without doing any rough work or calculation. Petitioner explained it by saying that he worked out the square root orally. The Examinations Committee was of opinion that it was not possible to accept the explanation given by the petitioner that he worked out the square root of such a figure orally. After rejecting the explanation given by the petitioner it was open to the Examinations Committee to draw an inference that the petitioner had found out the square root by some improper method. It cannot be said that no reasonable person could have rejected the explanation given by the petitioner or that there was no basis for its rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
