Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1674 - HC - Indian LawsAdoption 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.
|