Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.V.S. Prasad vs Vice Chancellor, Nagarjuna University ... on 25 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALT627
ORDER G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. The Petitioner approaches this Court seeking issuance of Writ or Order quashing the proceedings No. NU/SS2/MEC/M-95/95, dated: 27-9-1995 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner submits that he passed B.Com. I and II year. He was appearing for B.Com. III year Costing examination, the last examination which was taking place on 24-3-1995. While the petitioner was writing the examination, the flying squad entered into the examination hall and alleged that the petitioner was in possession forbidden material. Thereafter the Chief Superintendent of Examinations issued Memo on 24-3-1995 informing that the petitioner had resorted to malpractices during the examination in Room No. 8 - Four pages were found besides the candidate outside the window. The petitioner submitted necessary explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. However, the Special Officer Examinations issued a Memo dated 18-5-1995 stating that the petitioner was in possession of manuscript copying material and again his explanation was called for. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations for the second time. But, however the final proceedings were issued on 29-7-1995 cancelling all the papers of the examinations written by the petitioner during Mach/April, 1995 and he was also disqualified to appear for University Examinations for a period of one year. The said order is assailed before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not at all in possession of any material more particularly forbidden material. He further submits that the Invigilators who were present in the examination hall namely Dr. G. Rama Rao, Reader in Telugu and Sri M. Subba Rao, Reader in Political Department have given statements to the effect that no material was found with the petitioner when the flying squad inspected the person of the petitioner. Even the Chief Superintendent also sent a communication to the Special Officer, Examinations to the effect that the said papers were found on the campus side window and that most of the material was not connected with the costing examinations. It is not known as to what are the circumstances which weighed with the malpractices enquiry committee in finding the petitioner gulity. As can be seen from the statements, the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Even the flying squad appears to have gathered the papers which were lying outside the window. The Chief Superintendent when compared the material also found that they did not relate to the costing examinations.
4. In the counter though it was stated by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has indulged in malpractices, they did not aver that the petitioner was given any opportunity before the malpractices committee. It is further stated that the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 41 of the A.P. Universities Act within 10 days of the communication of the order and that the petitioner did not avail the appellate remedy. It appears that the malpractices committee had conducted enquiry. The petitioner was not given any opportunity as can be seen from the impugned orders. But at the same time, it cannot be concluded that it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice. The question that has to be considered is whether any weightage was given to the statements submitted by the Chief Superintendent and also the other Invigilators who did not find fault with the petitioner in any manner. It need not be emphasised and even in administrative actions having the effect of civil consequences the principles of natural justice have required to be followed. Even though the hearing is not contemplated under the procedure, yet, the consideration of the issue must be fair and the same should not suffer from arbitrariness. Fair play in action is an essential element in administrative law. Consideration of extraneous material is as fatal as non-consideration of relevant material in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. In the instant case, I find that no proper consideration was given to the case of the petitioner, more especially in the wake of the statements/reports of the invigilators and Chief Superintendent.
5. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition on the ground that the Committee failed to consider the relevant material before it.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orderdated:27-9-1995 as far as the petitioners concerned is quashed. There shall be a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry with regard to he malpractices alleged to have been adopted by the petitioner in the examination on 24-3-1995 duly taking into consideration the reports submitted by the Chief Superintendent and the two other Invigilators and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.