Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Ramakoteswara Rao vs The Vice-Chancellore, Nagarjuna ... on 13 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991AP71, AIR 1991 ANDHRA PRADESH 71, (1990) 1 APLJ 481 (1990) 3 ANDH LT 1, (1990) 3 ANDH LT 1
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a student studying B.Com. Degree Course in the second respondent-College. He has filed the application for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner with role No. 60762 in proceedings No. NU/ SS.2/ MEC/ 88-89 dated 7-7-1989 and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Art, 14 of the Constitution.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed his Intermediate course in April, 1982 and passed in second division. After completion of his Intermediate, he joined the Polytechic College at Ongole and passed in first class. Throughout his career of his Intermediate and Polytechnic courses, no complaints have been made against him by the concerned institution. The petitioner claims that he has done exceedingly well in sports and athletic meets which are relevant for the purposes of this case.
3. The petitioner appeared for the second year B.Com. Examination held in the month of April, 1989. According to him, at the time of writing the examinations, no one has complained that he has been indulging in malpractice. However, he received a Memo dated 11-6-1989 informing that his case comes under suspected mal-practice and as such he was directed to appear before the Malpractice Committee set up by the respondent-University. Except the said Memo, no material has been given to the petitioner about the accusations made against him or informing of the nature of the alleged malpractices indulged by him during the examinations. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 7-7-1989 has been passed by the respondent-University in which Item No. 3 states that the performance of the petitioner in all papers of the examinations held in April, 1989 stands cancelled and he is debarred from appearing in any University examinations for a period of five years from April, 1989 and he be detained in the same class and he shall be eligible to appear for the University examinations from April, 1994. It is this order of the University which the petitioner has challenged as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice as it was without any notice or advance information of the allegations made against the petitioner.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, it is stated inter alia, that the petitioner was served with the Memorandum dated 11-6-1989 asking him to appear before the Mal-practice Committee but he failed to appear before the Committee without assigning any reason. It is also asserted that the petitioner was caught while resorting to malpractices in the B.Com. examination of April, 1989. He was caught red handed while copying in the-Telugu paper of II B.Com., but he refused to receive the show cause notice from the college and threatened to assault anyone if any complaint is lodged against him. The further allegation against the petitioner is that there cannot be any complaint when there was a potential risk and threat to the lives and limbs of the persons concerned. The petitioner is only interested in continuing as a student, demanding promotion as a matter of right. In para 17 of the counter, while supporting the action taken against the petitioner, it is stated that the future of the college would be in peril if he is allowed to continue in the college. The University has to post three observers to hold the examination in the college where the petitioner was studying which speaks amply about the magnitude and seriousness of the situation created by the petitioner and his supporters. In other words, a reading of the counter filed by the University reveals that the petitioner has been terrorising the principal, the staff and other students in the college and therefore it has become necessary to take action against him. So much so, some of the lecturers got themselves transferred and others are trying to get out, unable to live with the threats, insults and abuses heaped by the petitioner and his followers.
5. Apart from the counter filed by the University, the second respondent-Principal of the Government College, Avanigadda where the petitioner has been studying also filed a counter. Strangely enough, the Principal of the College has not made any allegations of lawlessness against the petitioner, or of the terrorism spread by him in the college premises. It is stated that the University examinations for second year B.Com. were conducted as per schedule. The Telugu examination, as per schedule, commenced at 2.00 p.m. The flying squad constituted by the University authorities made a surprise visit to the college. The squad during their inspection found the petitioner indulging in malpractice and fearing that he would be apprehended by the squad, the petitioner left the examination hall without obtaining prior permission. According to the instructions issued to the candidate, no candidate writing the examinations should be permitted to leave the examination hall during the first one and half hours. The flying squad ceased the answer script and question paper of the petitioner, After about half an hour or so, the petitioner came back to the examination hall and requested that his answer script and answer paper may be returned so that he could write the examination. The flying squad refused to grant permission since the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for leaving the examination hall during the first one and half hours without any permission. The Principal expressed his inability to intervene in the matter since the flying squad was seized of the matter. The Principal denies that either he or any members of the staff bore grudge against the petitioner and he also denies the allegations made by the petitioner in that regard.
6. The analysis of the contentions raised in the two counter-affidavits, one filed by the University and the other by the Principal, leads to the inevitable conclusion that there are two different versions given by both the authorities. The emphasis in the counter filed on behalf of the University is on the alleged lawless activities of the petitioner constituting a threat to the members of the staff and the students. It is also mentioned incidentally that the petitioner has indulged in malpractices while writing his second year B.Com. Telugu paper. The counter-affidavit filed by the Principal does not have a whisper against the lawless acts of the petitioner. On the other hand, he slated that neither himself nor any members of the staff harbour any ill-feelings against the petitioner. It is further stated that he was caught by the flying squad while indulging in malpractices in the II Year Examination in Telugu paper.
7. The Memo dated 11-6-1989 served on the petitioner does not mention anything about the malpractices indulged by the petitioner in the Telugu paper of the II Year B.Com. In the counter of the University, it is stated that there was a potential risk and threat to the lives and limbs of the members of the staff and the students of the college. All that the Memo states is that the petitioner is required to appear before the Malpractices Committee on 19-6-1989 at 11-00 a.m. Apart from this Memo, no notice of any kind has been served on the petitioner informing him of the allegation of indulging in malpractice in the Telugu paper or about the petitioner as a lawless clement in the College. No doubt it is asserted in the counter filed by the University that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but he did not receive it. The essential aspect of the case is that in all matters where allegations of malpractices are made against a student, it is absolutely necessary that they must be informed precisely of the actual malpractices said to have been indulged by them in examination hall. A student must be informed in a definite form to answer the malpractice which he is supposed to have indulged either in copying or cheating, as the case may be. If there are any other allegations against the petitioner like, for instance, his behaving in a lawless fashion, he must be informed of the allegations so levelled against him so that he may be in a position to meet the case before the Malpractices Committee and offer his explanation for consideration by the said Committee. In this case the petitioner has neither been informed of the alleged malpractice in Telugu paper nor is it stated in the Memorandum dated 11-6-1989 served on him that he is behaving like a bully and is indulging in recalcitrant activities. In Ceylone University v. Fernando, (1960 (1) All ER 631) which-can be described as a locus classicus on the subject, the law is laid down firmly that a student cannot be condemned unheard without being informed of the definite allegations made against him in connection with the examination held by the University. In Board of High School v. Ghanshyam, it is held that a duty is cast on the Malpractices Committee to act judicially and fairly on the basis of the material placed before it. It is also held that due notice must be given to the person against whom allegations are made of indulging malpractices during the examinations. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Mash Hood Ali v.
Secretary, Education, A.P., wherein it is precisely held by Basi Reddy, J. that the essential requirements of natural justice in a case of this nature are firstly 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, the Tribunal should act in a good faith. This dictum of the learned single Judge in the above case is based on the well settled authorities like General Council of Medical Education and Registration, U.K. v. Speckman; Bynbe v. (Cinematograph Render's Society Ltd. and Ceylone University v. Fernando, (1960-61 All ER 631). The University has debarred the petitioner for a period of five years from apearing for any examination and also ordered his detention in the same class. It is needless to say that an extremely serious punishment has been imposed on the petitioner which is enough to ruin his life if it is implemented as such.
Nevertheless it is not gravity of the punishment with which the Court is concerned, but it is the manner in which the decision has been arrived at by the University authorities, which cannot stand to scrutiny of law. The petitioner has been condemned unheard. He has not been informed of the allegations. The two counters filed by the University and the Principal clearly show that both are at logger heads with each other, and they do not bear out the allegations made against the petitioner of indulging in malpractices. Under these circumstances, there is no option but to quash the proceedings No. NU/SS.2/MEC/ 88-89 dated 7-7-1989. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Advocate's fee: Rs. 200/-.
Petition allowed.