9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Surgery at Bachelor's level. Petitioner is prosecuting studies in the discipline of Medicine and Surgery at Bachelor level in 3rd year with respondent No. 1. 2.2. Petitioner appeared in theoretical papers of four subjects and thereafter practical examination was also conducted in January 2016. On 12.02.2016, result of the examination was declared. However, result of the petitioner was not declared and thereafter on 15.02.2016 it was intimated to the petitioner that result of the petitioner in connection with the examination which was held in January 2016 was reserved. He was also asked to remain present before the Code of Conduct Committee on 24.02.2016. 2.3. It is further stated that petitioner remained present on 24.02.2016 before the concerned committee where he was asked to explain, why he has used page No. 23 of the answer sheet as rough page? At that time, it was also 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. Petitioner therefore filed the aforesaid petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to declare the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 6. It is further urged that as per the instruction, rough work is permissible at left page of the answer sheet. However, the petitioner has done the rough work on the right page i.e. page No. 23 of the answer sheet in all the papers. However, it cannot be construed to be misconduct as alleged by the respondents. In past also in every examinations petitioner has done the rough work and at that time nobody has alleged that petitioner has done the said thing with a view to disclose his identity to the examiner. 7. At this stage, it is further contended that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner has not followed the instructions given in the answer sheets in strict sense, even then, there is no evidence with the respondent-University to prove that the petitioner has done the rough work on page No. 23 as alleged with a view to disclose his identity to the examiners. However, the respondents have presumed that petitioner has done the rough work with a view to take favour from the examiners. Thus, on the basis of presumption and assumption the impugned order is passed by the respondent-University and therefore the same is requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee. On 24.02.2016, the petitioner, in his own handwriting, has submitted his explanation wherein he has admitted that he has used page No. 23 of the answer sheet for doing rough work. Thus, when the petitioner himself has admitted about the aforesaid aspect there was no reason for the committee to give him more opportunity as contended by the petitioner. 13. It is thereafter" contended that the petitioner was aware about the instruction given in the answer sheet with regard to rough work. However, he has violated the said instruction with an intention to reveal his identity to the examiners and therefore when petitioner has admitted about the fact that he has done the rough work on page No. 23, the committee has taken the impugned decision and no illegality is committed by the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the academic field discipline and high standard is required and therefore with a view to maintain the same, the impugned order is passed and therefore this Court may not sit in appeal over the decision of the committee. 14. Learned advocate for the respondents thereafter placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estioned about page 23 and page 24. I answered that on page 23 I had done 'rough working' and had written the points of answers which were asked in examination and which I needed to recollect. I also said that in our university there is no provision written where to do rough working. But in many universities there is a clear mention in exam guidelines that Rough Working should be done on last page and should be crossed out. Regarding page 24, I said that the page was in constant wear and tear during writing and was inappropriate to write. Also examiner might miss out accidentally correcting page 24 when page 23 is rough working. It is my pattern of writing. I have no intention in disclosing my identity to any of the examiner. Please accept my reply of the questions and oblige me." 18. Thus,' the petitioner has specifically stated that on page 23 he had done 'rough working' and had written the points of answers which were asked in the examination and which are needed to recollect. He has further explained that there is no provision where to do 'rough working' but in many Universities it is clearly mentioned in the examination guidelines that rough wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is to say, where there is not a title or shred of evidence, but also in cases where the evidence, if any, is not capable of having any probative value, or on the basis of which no Tribunal could reasonably and logically come to the conclusion about the existence or nonexistence of facts relevant to the determination. According to the English decisions, even though a domestic tribunal may act on evidence not admissible according to legal rules in a Court of law, unless such evidence has some probative value in the sense mentioned above, it would be a breach of natural justice and/or an error of law to found any adverse decision thereon. xxx xxx xxx 28. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, the question as to the amplitude and width of the judicial review under Article 226 fell for consideration in the context of the disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. It was observed that "the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests, is not supported by any evidence at all" and that there was little doubt that a writ of certiorari can be claimed by a public servant if he is abl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pocket some papers to find out the letter relating to his appointment and that as; soon as his superior appeared to discourage him, he put the said papers back in his pocket. The Supreme Court observed that it was not possible to say in the aforesaid state of evidence that there was even an attempt to offer a bribe to the superior. There was merely a suspicion may be honest and genuine-entertained by the superior, but such suspicion cannot be treated as evidence against the delinquent. In this context, it was observed as follows at page 370: 'Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in Courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but never the less, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules. We have very carefull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llege brought to the notice of the Madurai Kamaraj University (the Controller of Examinations) certain malpractices committed by students in the Examinations. These malpractices affected innocent and intelligent students. Inter alia the Principal subsequently referred to the case of the first respondent who interchanged his roll number 533276 with that of another student (K.R. Gandhi) whose roll number was 533275. It was stated that during the academic year 1986-87 to 1989-90 in regard to semester examinations III and IV, V and VI, the first respondent and the said Gandhi used to be seated one behind the other in the examination hall. In view of the good academic record of said Gandhi who used to answer better than the first respondent, he was systematically interchanging his roll number with that of Gandhi on the answer books in some of the subjects in all the four semester examinations. This resulted in first respondent passing all the concerned examinations with good marks in those subjects whenever the roll number was interchanged, while at the same time Gandhi failed in those concerned subjects. However, Gandhi took supplementary examinations and secured good marks in all thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erly considered the fact that impugned order is a non-speaking order in which it is merely stated that the misconduct against the petitioner is proved but in which manner the said misconduct is proved is not at all discussed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) specifically held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 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. 28. Hence, in view of all aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the reasoning given above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has committed an error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
