TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 result of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to continue with his internship. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the respondent passed an order dated 08.03.2016, whereby his result is cancelled and he is debarred from appearing in any of the examinations conducted by the University till the end (second semester) of the academic year 2015-2016/till the end of second semester and he is also prevented from attending the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk 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 required to be quashed and set aside. 8. At this stage, it is further submitted that if the respondent-University was of the opinion that the petitioner has disclosed his identity to the examiners then it would have initiated a detailed inquiry in connection with the same. However, no such inquiry was held and the impugned order is passed on the basis of the assumption. Hence, the present is the case of no evidence and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1972 SC 32 and submitted that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the delinquent admitted all the relevant facts on which the decision could be given against him, it could not be said that the enquiry was in breach of principles of natural justice. 15. Learned advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge 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 working should be done on last page and should be crossed out. Thereafter he has specifically denied the allegation that he has intention of disclosing his identity to any of the examiner. In spite of his specific denial about the allegation of disclosing his identity to the examiners, the respondents have considered the same as an admission of his guilt. Thus, on the basis of the assumption the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 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 able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceeding is based on no evidence. A conclusion on a question of fact, it was held, would be assailable if it is manifest that there is no evidence to support it even assuming bonafides of the disciplinary authority. The following observations made at page 369 are material from the point of view of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertained 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 carefully considered the evidence led in the present enquiry and borne in mind the plea made by the learned Attorney General, but we are unable to hold that on the record, there is any evidence which can sustain the finding.... (underlining supplied) These observations apply with equal force to disciplinary inquiries held by the academic authority and their significance cannot be over-emphasised. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhi) 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 those subjects in which he had failed in the main examination. Gandhi applied for revaluation of the concerned examination papers held in April 1989. It was then discovered that the roll number on the answer books was tempered with by correction of the last digit 5 into 6 . On further examination of first respondent's answer books it was found that in his answer books the last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain 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 and therefore the impugned judgment is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the respondent-University as well as the judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3317 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside and thereby respondents are hereby directed to declare th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
