Km. Divya Chandra vs The Vice-Chancellor, Roorkee ... on 17 February, 1992

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Km. Divya Chandra vs The Vice-Chancellor, Roorkee ... on 17 February, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR1992ALL298, (1992)2UPLBEC1435, AIR 1992 ALLAHABAD 298, 1992 ALL. L. J. 842 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1435, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1435

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. S. K. Saraf and has prayed that the said committee should be restrained from going into the matter of use of unfair means by the petitioner in the spring semester of B.E. II Year (Electrical) of 1986 and further relief, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2. It is useful to detail out the facts relevant for the purposes of decision of this writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time was a student of B.E. (Elec.) III Year of the University of Roorkee. Her case is that she has a brilliant academic record. She is said to have passed I Year examination and the Autumn Semester examination of II Year. After the declaration of the result of B.E. (Elec.) II Year Spring Semester some students of B.E. (Elec.) III Year out of heart burning and jealousy are said to have submitted a representation to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering alleging therein gross irregularities and manipulations in the examination and the result of the petitioner in the Spring Semester of 1985-86. These students are said to have been promoted by some persons, opposed to the petitioner's father, who was Head of the Department of W.R.D.T.C. of the University. On the said complaint the Vice-Chancellor is said to have appointed an Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. K. G. Ranga Raju on 26-8-1986. This Committee had Dr. N. K. Nanda and Dr. R. Sinhasan as its members. This Committee was asked to examine specifically the question of any irregularity in evaluating the performance of the petitioner. The Committee was to fix responsibility for such irregularity and also suggest remedial action, if any. The Committee was requested to make suggestions for improvement to avoid similar occurrence. Copy of the order by which this Committee was appointed is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have apprised the said Committee about her merit in the Engineering Course. A copy of that representation is also on the file as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Before the Ranga Raju Committee the petitioner is said to have appeared on 4th and 8th September, 1986. The members of the Committee asked the petitioner to admit her guilt. The students, who had made the complaint, participated in the proceedings before the Committee and in their presence the petitioner was asked to make confession of her guilt. The petitioner turned down the suggestion. The said Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was supplied only with extract of the report. The proceedings before the Ranga Raju Committee are said to be farce and mockery of principles of natural justice and fair play.

3. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have appointed another committee on 16-9-1986, which was headed by Dr. A. R. Chandrasekaran. Copy of the order constituting this Committee is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It had three more professors as its members. The following directions were given to the Committee :

"On receiving a complaint from a number of students of B.E. III Year Electrical, the Vice-Chancellor had appointed a Committee consisting of Prof. K. G. Ranga Raju, Dr. N. K. Nanda and Dr. R. Sinhasan to enquire into the allegations and suggest if adequate basis existed for further action. Extracts from the report of the Committee insofar as they relate to the conduct of the student are being sent to the members in separate sealed covers. The present Committee is requested to function as an unfair-

means Committee and give its recommendation after giving due opportunity to the student to present her case in writing and orally, if she so wishes."

4. The constitution of this Committee is said to be in exercise of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor under Regulation 57.21.5 of the University Regulations. The said Committee appears to have addressed a communication to the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the said communication that the term of the reference was enlarged. The Ranga Raju Committee is said to have reported against the petitioner with regard to the following :

(a) Getting to know the contents of all the question papers of B.E. (Elc.) II Year at the Spring Semester Examination of 1985-86 to gain advantage over the other students of her class in this examination;

(b) making additions in her answer-book in the paper EEN 202 after the examination and outside the examination hall to her advantage.

5. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend herself against the above recommendations of the Enquiry Committee before the unfair-means Committee. She was given an option to present her case in writing or orally and the meeting in this connection was to be held at 4 p.m. on 24-9-1986.

6. The petitioner is said to have challenged the constitution of this Committee. She demanded the material on which the Committee was constituted and also the Ranga Raju Committee's report by a letter, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It is stated that the Students Association of the University is said to have launched a compaign pressurising the authorities of the University to enlarge the scope of the Chandrasekaran Committee. They campaigned for the change of the Chandra-sekaran Committee. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have been acting under coercion and pressure. The Chandrasekaran Committee was disbanded and was replaced under the pressure of the students. The students are said to have pressed for appointment of another committee of which the members of their choice should be co-opted as members. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have succumbed to the pressure of the students. On October 1, 1986 another committee headed by Prof. S. K. Saraf was constituted. The members of this Committee were taken from the list given by the students in terms of some accord reached between the students and the Vice-Chancellor. The constitution of this Committee is reflected by Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have replied to the notice issued to her by the Chandrasekaran Committee. Her stand was that it was not a case of use of unfair means in the examination. Therefore, the validity or correctness of the order appointing the second committee, which was termed as unfair-means Committee was challenged in the letter by the petitioner.

7. The Committee headed by Mr. S. K. Saraf had four more professors as the members of the said Committee. They were named in the oder dated 1-10-1986 as Prof. V. K. Verma, Prof. M. K. Srivastava, Prof. P. K. Pande and Prof. S. C. Gupta. The Committee was informed that on the basis of the findings of the Ranga Raju Committee it appears that there was possible involvement of several persons in the alleged irregularities to the conduct of the examination. Therefore, the Saraf Committee was directed to issue charge-sheet to such persons whom" they considered liable to be charged, to enquire into their guilt and recommend punishment for those whose guilt is established. The Committee was authorised to initiate action against any other persons not named in the Ranga Raju Committee report if it considered that there was adequate ground for doing so. The petitioner has placed a communication on record (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) which purports to have been an agenda for emergency meeting of Syndicate to be held on 7-1-1987. By this letter it transpires that the students had resorted to agitation including hunger strike because they were not satisfied with the terms of reference of Chandrasekaran Committee. The major demand of the students were that simultaneous action should be initiated against all the persons named in Prof. Raju Committee report and to include student's representatives in Prof. Chandrasekaran Committee. The agitation is said to have been called off by the students on October 30, 1986, when the Vice-Chancellor agreed to appoint an Enquiry Committee consisting by the students. The Chandra-sekaran Committee was dissolved and a new committee headed by Prof. Saraf was asked to collect additional evidence, if the Committee felt it necessary. The petitioner submits that the appointment of the Saraf Committee was arbitrary and irrational. It was done only to appease section of students, who were party to the dispute and to cause harassment to the petitioner.

8. One of the members of the Saraf Committee, namely, Dr. V. K. Verma, had appeared as a witness against the petitioner before the Ranga Raju Committee. The Vice-Chancellor totally surrendered his authority to the said Committee. Under Regulation 57.21.7(8) the discretion is conferred on the Vice-Chancellor to frame charge, which cannot be delegated. The Saraf Committee proceeded in the matter with great prejudice and predetermined mind. The petitioner's appearance before the said Committee appears to be a mere formality. The Saraf Committee is said to have asked the petitioner to appear for written-test in two papers i.e. EEN-202 and Ma.204 by their letter dated 25-10-1986. The Committee suggested that the appearance of the petitioner in the examination was necessary to test her knowledge. The petitioner is said to have requested that the entire group of students of the class be asked to undergo the test, then she would be willing to appear in the test. The suggestion was dropped by the Saraf Committee. Prof. S, K. Sarafs letter in this regard is contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition. This letter was issued before any charge was framed against the petitioner. In this letter the petitioner was sold that after careful examination of all the available information at the Committee's disposal it has decided to ask the petitioner to appear in two of the subjects. The purpose of this test was to conduct sample check of her knowledge, understanding, memory and ability of presentation with reference to B.E. (Electrical) II Year Spring Semester subjects. It gave the details about the nature of question papers as also about the time and venue for the conduct of the test.

9. The petitioner in her reply to the Annexure 9 stated that the members of the Committee were biased against her. She also stated that asking the petitioner only to undergo the test without asking the other students of her class to do so was not fair. She, however, accepted the proposal on the conditions that the proposed test to be conducted in respect of all the students of her group. The reply of the petitioner is contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition.

10. The Committee did not furnish copies of the documents to the petitioner. It rejected her request in this regard on the ground that the Regulations did not oblige the Committee to furnish copies of the documents to the petitioner. This is reflected by Annexure 11 to the writ petition. In spite of the attitude of Prof. Saraf the petitioner submits that she cooperated with the enquiry and sought time till November 14, 1986 to furnish a reply. This is reflected by Annexure 12 to the writ petition.

11. On November 14, 1986 the petitioner submitted her reply. She reiterated that the documents demanded by her were-not supplied to her; hence she was not in a position to give a reply. She is said to have told the Committee that she was also cross-examined by the Ranga Raju Committee. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by cross-examining her again. This is reflected by Annexure 13 to the writ petition. Even before the receipt of her reply the Committee is said to have made up its mind to punish the petitioner on November 11, 1986. The Committee had submitted its interim recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor. It had proposed the suspension of the petitioner. This is evident by Annexure 14 to the writ petition. The petitioner has submitted on the basis of Regulation 53.6(d) that the suspension was a substantive punishment for the petitioner and after making a recommendation the said Committee had become functus officio. The use of the expression 'interim' in the said representation was only a misnomer. It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was reasonable for the petitioner to infer that further participation in the proceedings of the Committee was futile and no justice could be expected from such a Committee. On December 22, 1986 the Committee made yet another recommendation for withholding of the petitioner's result. This is reflected by Annexure 15 to the writ petition. The Syndicate is said to have disapproved the recommendation of the Committee so far as it suggested the suspension of the petitioner. It approved withholding of her result by a resolution dated 8-1-1987. This is contained in Annexure 16 to the writ petition, A formal communication was addressed to the petitioner on 12-1-1987, a copy whereof is Annexure 17 to the writ petition. The withholding of the petitioner's result is said to be without authority as the Vice-Chancellor had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. On 28-1-1987 another communication was addressed to the petitioner by Prof. Saraf in which it was conveyed to the petitioner that photo copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner could not be furnished to her and the reasons for non-supply thereof had already been conveyed to her. She was asked to obey the summons and appear before the Committee on 30-1-1987 and if she would not appear before the Committee it would amount to indiscipline. This communication is contained in Annexure 18 to the writ petition.

12. On April 4, 1987 the petitioner is said to have received a show cause notice for the charges contained in the letter. This communication is Annexure 19 to the writ petition. In response to this letter the petitioner wrote to the members of the Committee that, the Committee was constituted under the pressure of the students, who were complainants against the petitioner. The name of Dr. V. K. Verma was not mentioned in Annexure 19 though he had taken part in the deliberations of the Committee. Dr. P. K. Pandey had also resigned from the membership of the Committee and no substitute had been appointed in his place. The appointment of the Committee at the dictates of the students who were party to the dispute and the appointment of the persons as members in the said Committee, who appeared as witnesses against the petitioner in earlier proceedings make the enquiry arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. It was alleged in the said letter that the attitude of the members of the Committee was partial and they were Working under the influence of some students, who were party to the dispute. The remaining three members of the Committee were asked to stop the enquiry and refrain themselves from proceeding further. They were told in clear terms that they were not acting in accordance with law. This is reflected by Annexure 20 to the writ petition. Prof. Saraf in his communication denied the charges and stated that the Committee was conducting its work in accordance with the provisions of the Rules/Regulations and was not influenced by any extraneous considerations. This is evident by Annexure 21 to the writ petition. The petitioner had also asked for the supply of documents to reply the charge-sheet. Her demand was without prejudice to the challenge which she had made to the constitution of the Committee and in respect of the conduct of the members of the Committee. A copy of this communication is contained in Annexure 22 to the writ petition. The petitioner had demanded certain things and documents to enable her to reply to the charge-sheet. On the same day i.e. 13-4-1987 Prof. Saraf rejected the request of the petitioner. According to him it was not necessary to supply the documents to the petitioner since the charges were very clear and specific. The reply is contained in Annexure 23 to the writ petition.

13. The petitioner submits that the members of the Committee were biased and the constitution of the Committee was illegal. The Committee had prejudged the petitioner's case and before the framing of the charges it had recommended punishment against the petitioner. Refusal of the Committee to supply documents to the petitioner to enable her to file explanation smacked of malice. Therefore, the proceedings of the Committee were said to be illegal. The proceedings of the Committee were in flagrant violation of the principles of the natural justice affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee itself.

14. Before adverting to the reply filed by the other side it is necessary to refer to some Court orders for proper appreciation of the facts placed before the Court by the parties. The proceedings of the Enquiry Committee had remained stayed for some time in pursuance of the interim order dated 24-12-1987. However, this order was modified and a fresh interim order was passed on 4-1-1988. The said order reads as under :

"The University will be free to continue the enquiry against the petitioner who shall cooperate in it without prejudice to the stand taken by her in the present petition in any manner. The University will permit the petitioner to be represented at the inquiry by a person of her choice who shall, however, not be a practising lawyer. The inquiry shall be completed, as far as possible, within two weeks of the first date on which the Enquiry Committee now meets after notice to the petitioner. The Inquiry Committee may record its conclusions but in case they are against the petitioner, effect shall not be given to them without obtaining orders from this Court."

15. On 7-4-1988 another order was passed allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination provisionally for 8th Semester. The Vice-Chancellor was directed to consider the enquiry report and he was permitted to take a prima facie decision about the punishment should be awarded to the petitioner. The follow-up action was permitted to be taken in accordance with the relevant rules on the basis of the enquiry report but the same was not to be implemented without obtaining permission from the Court. The relevant portion of the enquiry report was to be furnished to the petitioner along with the proposed notice of show cause against the punishment.

16. On 25-8-1988 a Division Bench of this Court permitted the counsel for the other side to place a copy of the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 8-8-1988 on record. Its copy was to be given to the petitioner also. The counsel for the parties did not want to produce any further material in connection with the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 8-8-1988. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was challenging the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the material, which had already been submitted with the writ petition.

17. The position which at present emerges is that the petitioner's result for the examination which she has taken under the orders of the Court is not announced. Her result of 3rd Semester is withheld under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee. The suspension recommended by the Committee has not been approved by the University authorities.

18. Counter-affidavits are filed by Sri N. S. Bhatnagar, Registrar of Roorkee University and Prof. S. K. Saraf, Head of the Enquiry Committee, in reply to the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Dr. Bhatnagar has stated that the petitioner was an average student. At the end of I Year in B.E. Course the petitioner had secured 54th position in the class out of 63 students. In II Year Autumn Semester the petitioner had secured 61.6%. In the Spring Semester in dispute she had secured 85.2%. In Autumn Semester the petitioner is said to have passed the Mathematics subject after she was given grace of 5 marks. In II Semester of the year 1985-86 the marks obtained by the petitioner were suspiciously high. How the petitioner obtained high percentage of marks of 85.2% is the subject-matter of enquiry before the Saraf Committee. It is stated that the academic standard of the Roorkee University is very high. After the result of the Spring Semester of 1985-86 B.E. (Elec.) II was declared 57 students out of 63 belonging to the class of the petitioner submitted a memorandum on 20-8-1986 alleging gross irregularities and manipulations in the marks of the petitioner and prayed for an enquiry. This representation was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, who is said to have ordered the Dean of Students Welfare to look into the matter. This led to the constitution of K. G. Ranga Raju Committee. Copy of the representation of 57 students is placed on record as Annex. CA 2 to the counter-affidavit. It is denied that the Vice-Chancellor had succumbed to any tirade launched by the students. It is also stated that the enquiry was not initiated because the petitioner's father was opposed by certain elements. in the University. The students' representation had an alarming implication, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor decided to have the matter thoroughly looked into by the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, on the following facts :

(i) To examine possible use of unfair means by K.m. Vidya Chandra in securing high marks in the Spring Semester examination;

(ii) Biased evaluation of Km. Divya Chandra's scripts by any teacher or any such impropriety on their parts during the above examination;

(iii) Lapses on the part of officers and staff entrusted with the conduct of the above examination leading to the possible leakage of question papers or such other practices and suggesting remedial measures if any irregularities have been found in this case.

(iv) Looking into the present system of examination and proposing suitable changes, if required, for the future.

19. The percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner in various subjects in the I year and II Year examinations is given and on the basis of her previous performance, it is stated that she could not obtain high marks. She is said to have jumped up by 20% marks in Spring Semester of 1986 II Year examination. The University, therefore, held that this was unusual, therefore, a thorough investigation was required to be made. It is denied that the Committee had pressurised the petitioner to admit the guilt. However, it is admitted that the students were allowed to be present as observers during the enquiry by Ranga Raju Committee. It is stated that her statement was recorded by Ranga Raju Committee, which is contained in Annexure CA 6 and CA 7 to the counter-affidavit. After the submission of the report by the Ranga Raju Committee, contained in Annexure CA 8 to the counter-

affidavit the Vice-Chancellor sent a reply, which is contained in Annexure CA 9 to the counter-affidavit. The Ranga Raju Committee is said to be only a fact finding committee. It was not a committee connected with the enquiry into the charges against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 4-4-1987 by the Saraf Committee, which was constituted to look into the charges against the petitioner and other persons employed in the University, including the Registrar. The Ranga Raju Committee's report is said to have not affected the petitioner. The job of the said Committee was to find out whether there had been any irregularities and whether those irregularities required investigation. It is stated that some employees of the University had also been given charge-sheet. The Registrar of the University was placed under suspension, which would show the seriousness of the matter. The constitution of the Ranga Raju Committee is admitted and the said Committee was constituted not to function as Unfair-means Committee. The petitioner is said to have interfered with the enquiry before the Chandrasekaran Committee and thereafter before the Saraf Committee. Students' agitation is admitted and it is stated that their demand was for taking action against all the persons named by the Ranga Raju Committee. The constitution of the Committee consisting of staff members including such members, a list of whom had been submitted by the students, is admitted. The demand of the students for initiating enquiry is sought to be justified as being understandable and logical. The list of names of professors submitted by the students' Union, who would be included in the Enquiry Committee, was accepted because there was involvement of staff, both academic and non-academic, of the University in the alleged use of unfair means by the petitioner and the students bona fide apprehended that a complete investigation may not be possible and it was for that reason that the Chandrasekaran Committee was disbanded and Saraf Committee was constituted for thorough investigation against all the persons named in the report of the Ranga Raju Committee. The constitution of Saraf Committee is admitted to have been made after several deliberations and its constitution had satisfied all concerned. It is admitted that in order to obviate any unfairness in the enquiry to be conducted by the Saraf Committee the Roorkee University Students Union submitted a list of nine professors from amongst whom they wished the Enquiry Committee to be constituted. The University acted fairly in constituting the Committee from amongst the names suggested by the Students Union. The persons suggested by the Students Union were men of integrity and the Vice-Chancellor and pro-Vice-Chancellor had full confidence in the members, who were included in the Committee. The members of the Committee were chosen by the Vice-Chancellor. It is stated that initially the Committee had five members but since Mr. V. K. Verma had appeared before the Ranga Raju Committee, he had resigned, he was no longer member of the Committee when the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have filed a reply to the charge-sheet also, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure CA 12 to the counter-affidavit. Prior to this she is said to have sent a letter to the Committee, a copy whereof is Annexure CA 13 to the counter-affidavit. Asking the petitioner to appear in the test proposed by the Committee was not said to be bad as that was a method by which the Committee could test the ability of the petitioner. The recommendation of the Committee against the petitioner prior to the framing of the charge is not said to be mala fide. It is denied that there was any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the attitude of Prof. Saraf. The petitioner is said to have not been keen to cooperate with the Enquiry Committee. It is stated that the Vice-Chancellor has power to suspend a student from attending the class pending enquiry before awarding punishment under Regulation 53.6(d)(e)(f). It is denied that the Committee was constituted under Regn. 53.4(d). This regulation prohibits the use of unfair means in the examination. The Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor under his powers within the purview of the Act, rules and regulations. It is stated that the charge-

sheet was issued against the petitioner on 4-4-1987 because the Enquiry Committee had remained busy as the matter of the Registrar's suspension was to be reconsidered under the orders of the Chancellor. The letter contained in Annexure 21 is said to have been written in view of the decision taken by the syndicate meeting, which is contained in Annex. CA 17 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was permitted to examine the documents in original. She had asked for nonexistent documents or those documents, which were not relied upon while framing the charges. It is denied that the Committee was biased. The enquiry was with regard to the academic performance of the petitioner.

20. Prof. Saraf, respondent No. 2, has also filed counter-affidavit. He has adopted the pleas raised by Dr. N. S. Bhatnagar, who has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In addition to that it is stated by Prof. Saraf that the petitioner has not made any specific allegation of mala fide against him. It is stated that he had never taught the petitioner and other students for the entire period during which the petitioner had been in the University i.e. with effect from July, 1984. He has denied any association with the petitioner's father who is one Prof. Brijesh Chandra in the Department of Water Resources Development Training Centre. Prof. Saraf has stated that he is Professor in the Chemical Department whereas the father of the petitioner is a Professor in the Department of Water Resources Development Training Centre, which is a seperate Department. He has for the first time seen the petitioner on 30-1-1987. He has denied that he had any prejudice against the petitioner or he was predetermined to decide the case against the petitioner. The petitioner's conclusion in this regard are said to be presumptuous. He has not prejudiced the issues before him. The Committee's object, according to him, was to arrive at a conclusion about the alleged use of unfair means by the petitioner. He has justified the suggestion made to the petitioner by the Committee to appear in two papers i.e. EEN 202 and MA-204 and answer the questions before the Committee. There was no harrasment against the petitioner by this. Had the petitioner appeared in the test and shown her ability, the matter would not have proceeded any further nor would charge-sheet or show cause notice have been issued. Student could be suspended from attending the class pending enquiry. It is wrong to suggest that the Committee has made up its mind to punish the petitioner. Recommendation of suspension was not punitive. It was an interim recommendation with a view to expedite the enquiry procedings. Punishment was to be imposed by the Vice-Chancellor after the enquiry was completed. The petitioner is said to have been avoiding appearance before the Committee. The petitioner's impressions and doubts about the attitude of the members of the Committee is said to be baseless. He has also denied the allegation that the Committee. refused to furnish the documents to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have been informed that she would be given all relevant documents provided the petitioner appeared before the Committee. Along with the charge-sheet she was given the necessary documents and was also asked to appear and inspect the documents she wanted to rely upon.

21. Rejoinder affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner by one Vinay Kumar in reply to the counter-affidavit of Prof. S. K. Saraf. It is stated that the petitioner's charge against the members of the Saraf Committee was that the method of conduct of enquiry was such that no reasonable man would expect justice from it. The apprehension of bias on their part was too strong. The petitioner has not attributed individual bias against any of the members of the Committee muchless Prof. Saraf. It is stated that the members of the Enquiry Committee collectively were Bias against the petitioner. It is stated that Prof. Saraf was a member of Syndicate. The petitioners case was debated and considered by the Syndicate on several occasions, which fact has-been suppressed by Prof. Saraf. From the totality of circumstances it would appear that the petitioner had an apprehension that she would not be able to get justice from the Saraf Committee and her apprehension was reasonable and proper. Out of 450 teachers, the students, who had complained against the petitioner, reposed faith in a few teachers, who constituted the committee, which would show that they were favourably inclined towards the students. The Committee is said to have proceeded in the enquiry with the assumption that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the proposed charge even before it had an occasion to apply its mind to the Ranga Raju Committee report and to the evidence which might be collected by it. The procedure adopted by the Committee was against the principles of natural justice. The members of the Committee had put themselves in a position of prosecutors as well as Judges. The Committee persistently refused to furnish the documents to the petitioner, which would demonstrate the amount of bias they harboured against the petitioner. Ultimately the Committee yielded to supply the documents but only after they found that the stand taken by it was unreasonable and arbitrary. They refused to supply copies of the documents but permitted the petitioner herself to inspect the documents. The Committee before issuing of charge-sheet recommended suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry. They are said to have pursuaded the Vice-Chancellor through their letter dated 22-12-1986 to accept the recommendation made by it. They also pursuaded the Vice-Chancellor to withhold the result of Autumn Semester examination of 1986-87 of B.E. (Elec.) IIIYear. The aforesaid recommendation did ' not form part of the recommendations made by the Committee on 11-11-1986. It was submitted later on. After the submission of the report the members of the Committee are said to have met the Vice-Chancellor and discussed the report with him. They are said to have pursuaded the Vice-Chancellor to accept the recommendation made by the Committee. All the members of the Committee are members of the Syndicate, which is the highest decision making body of the University. The members-of the Committee were present in the Syndicate meeting on 8-1-1987 which is reflected by Annexure 16 to the writ petition. In this meeting the recommendation of Prof. Saraf Committee were under consideration. They participated in the deliberations and voted also in favour of the recommendations made by them. They pursuaded the other members of the Committee also to accept their report. The Syndicate, however, did not accept the suspension of the petitioner but had accepted the recommendation of withholding the result of the petitioner of B. E. (Elect.) Autumn Semester. The petitioner is said to have alleged bias against the Committee on 10-4-1987 in the letter addressed to the Committee. That letter should have been forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor but the members of the Committee who became the Judges of their own conduct, dismissed the allegation as unsubstantiated.

22. There is an affidavit of one Dr. M. K. Srivastava, Professor of Physics, University of Roorkee. This affidavit seems to have been filed in compliance with the order of this court dated 12-4-1989 whereby the respondents were asked to disclose whether the members of the Saraf Committee appointed on 1-10-1986 were present and had participated in the emergent meeting of Syndicate held on 8-1-1987. The counter affidavit was also to contain full particulars as to the performance of the petitioner of B.E. III year examination held in the year 1987-88 which was to be produced before the court. Mr. M. K. Srivastava was one of the members of the Saraf Committee. He has stated that some of the members of the Saraf committee did participate in the meeting of the Syndicate. However, their participation was limited to the answer of queries raisd by the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the Syndicate. He has further stated that the Saraf committee or any committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in this behalf, in exercise of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor under regulation 53.10(b), possesses in itself the power of suspending a student, against whom an enquiry is going on, from attending classes. The Vice-Chancellor has residuary power for taking such action as he thinks fit. Such action has finality attached to it. The Saraf Committee is said to have made a recommendation vide their letters dated 11-11-1986 and 22-12-1986 to the Vice-Chancellor against the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor in turn placed the same before the Syndicate. It is also stated that the Saraf committee was conducting enquiry into the alleged involvement of the Registrar, some faculty members and the officers in respect of the alleged irregularities in leaking out the question. papers to the petitioner, The enquiry was not. confined to the petitioner alone. For this reason and for the reason because the Vice-Chancellor had thought it fit to place the matter before the Syndicate in respect of the petitioner, the matter came up before the Syndicate. The members of the Saraf committee by virtue of being professors of the University are members of the Syndicate. In any future meeting, of the Syndicate, it is. stated, the members of the Saraf Committee, refrained themselves from attending the same. The Syndicate is said to have taken a decision on the basis of voting of the members which was held by secret ballot. Overwhelming majority of the members of the Syndicate voted in favour of withholding of the petitioners' result. However, this affidavit does not contain the other information, which was required by the order dated 12-4-1989.

23. Mr. Ravi Kant, appearing for the petitioner has argued that the enquiry is conducted in violation of the rules. The power to enquire can be delegated but the Vice-Chancellor could not delegate the power to frame charge against the petitioner. It is stated that the Vice-Chancellor should have considerd the report of Ranga Raju Committee or such other material himself and after assuming satisfaction he could frame and charge, hold enquiry himself or appoint somebody for the purposes of conducting the enquiry. It was imperative for the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision himself as to whether it was necessary to hold enquiry and thereafter make a direction for holding an enquiry, which could be delegated. A sweeping order passed by the Vice-Chancellor delegating his power of satisfaction to the Saraf Committee in respect of necessity of holding of enquiry is said to be bad and unwarranted under law. Mr, Ravi Kant next argued that the members of the enquiry committee were biased against the petitioner. The whole exercise was undertaken with the biased mind. The Committee was pre-deter-mined to punish the petitioner, therefore, without framing charge they asked her to appear in the sample test. They also recommended the petitioner's suspension from class and withholding of her result before framing of charge. The members of the Saraf Committee participated in the meeting of Syndicate which took the decision of withholding of the petitioners' result. It was also argued that the Saraf Committee refused to supply documents to the petitioner to enable her to submit her answer to the charges. Mr. Ravi Kant's another point, which merits consideration, is that a group of students had made the complaint against the petitioner. They were in the position of complainants against the petitioner and were interested parties. The members of the Saraf Committee were nominated by this group of complain-ants and it was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor. A group of students was interested party in the enquiry as they wanted to harm the petitioner and had gone on agitation also for constitution of a committee. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have yielded before the demand of the said students and appointed a committee headed by Prof. Saraf on the complainants asking. It is stated that the Ranga Raju committee was not a statutory committee. Therefore, its report could not be used against the petitioner. However, the Saraf Committee is said to be a statutory committee. Mr. Ravi Kant also stated that the petitioner had throughout the proceedings complained of bias against all the members, which is different from malice and she had a reasonable apprehension that the members of the committee were harbouring bias against her, therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated as anything said or done with a biased mind strikes at the very root of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee is also said to be at the instance of a group of students who were complainants against the petitioner.

23A. Mr. Kackkar, appearing along with Mr. S. P. Gupta, has stated that there is no basis for the petitioner to submit that the members of the committee were biased against her. In reply to Mr. S. K. Sarafs counter affidavit, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner through one Vinay Kumar, who has stated that the petitioner had not attributed individual bias against any member of the committee muchless Prof. Saraf, The petitioner had only inferred bias from the conduct of the members of the Saraf Committee during the enquiry. The allegation of bias is denied by the University in their affidavit. It is stated that Prof: Verma, one of the members of the Saraf Committee, had resigned.

24. Reliance is placed by Mr. Kackkar on the Ranga Raju Committee's report. The report of the Ranga Raju Committee, it is stated, has involved the petitioner. It is stated in the Ranga Raju Committee's report that she had made additions in the answer book of EEN-202 after the examination and outside the examination hall. These additions have resulted in her securing high marks in her favour. It is inferred that she could have access to the manuscript of- the question papers of her class, which were in possession of one Dr. Chaturvedi, Registrar of the University. This had led the Ranga Raju Committee to draw further inference that she had come to know the question papers and had also resorted to copying from notes etc. during the examination. However, there is no report of the invigilator that she could do so in the hall. She was given benefit of doubt in this regard. The Ranga Raju Committee has found her guilty on the following counts:

(a) Getting to know the contents of all the question papers of B.C. (Elect'.)II Year at the Spring Semester Examination of 1985-86 to gain advantage over other students of her class in the examination;

(b) Making additions in her answer-book in the paper EEN-202 after examination and outside the examination hall to her advantage.

25. According to Mr. Kackkar this was prima facie proved against her, therefore, a further enquiry in her presence was necessary which could Teveal the truth. It is stated that, the Roorkee University has great amount of reputation and its standard is considered to be very high throughout the country. Therefore, the allegations of this type could not be overlooked and the University was keen to conduct an enquiry into the complaint filed by a group of students so as to save the image of the University from being tarnished. It was further submitted that the petitioner's letter dt/-15-9-1986 to the Vice-Chancellor objecting to the constitution of the Ranga Raju Committee and one Mr. Yadav's a student of the petitioner's class, active participation in the deliberations of the Ranga Raju Committee, is said to have been replied by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor has clearly, in his reply dated 16-9-1986, stated that the Ranga Raju Committee was not a Unfair-- means Committee but only a fact-finding committee. The Vice-Chancellor denied that any student had participated in the function of the committee. He, however, said that the students were" present in the Committee--room as the enquiry was not held in camera. The petitioner was assured that no action was to be taken against her unless full opportunity was given to her under the regulations. Mr. Kackkar has also referred to the letter dated 20-9-1986 addressed by Mr. Chandrasekaran to the petitioner by which she was given opportunity to defend herself against the recommendations of the enquiry committee before the Unfair--means Committee by presenting her case in writing or orally if she desired so. This letter is said to have been replied by the petitioner wherein she has said that the letter under reply has concluded that the petitioner was guilty. The petitioner has taken objection to it. The petitioner stated that the Ranga Raju Committee had gone beyond the terms of reference. The petitioner had demanded a copy of the report of the said committee and denied the correctness and validity of the report of the Ranga Raju Committee. Mr. Kackkar also referred to the letter of Mr. Saraf addressed to the petitioner on 26-10-1986 by which he had asked the petitioner to appear in two subjects of B.E. (Elect.) II Year, which was said to be a sample check of the petitioner's knowledge, understanding, memory and ability or presentation with reference to B.E. (Elect.) II Year subjects. The petitioner's reply to this letter was also referred. The petitioner had stated her reasons as to why she considered such a test as futile. However, she had stated that she would not refuse to appear before any fair tribunal along with those complainants upon whose complaint the matter had started and things were moving in a particular direction. She did not agree to appear singly in the manner, suggested by Mr. Saraf Mr. Kackkar has referred to some other documents to show that there was no bias against the petitioner nor were the principles of natural justice violated. He has also referred to various regulations, which govern the controversy raised by the parties.

26. The Roorkee University Act of 1947 makes it possible for the authorities to frame rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of the Act. Under Rule 4.5 The Vice-Chancellor is authorised to constitute such ad hoc committees of teachers of the University as he may deem necessary to help him in the performance of his duties as the principal executive and academic officer of the University. The Ranga Raju Committee is said to have been appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, according to Mr. Kackkar, in exercise of the powers vested in him under the Act and under Rule 4.5 of the Rules. The committee was a fact finding committee which found that there was ground for holding further enquiry into the alleged conduct of the petitioner by which she had gained undue advantage over the other students in the examination in question. It was a type of preliminary enquiry to suggest as to whether further enquiry in the presence of the petitioner was necessary in respect of the complaint submitted to the Vice-Chancellor by a group of students against the petitioner and all those, who are said to have committed acts of omission. It is, however admitted that the reason for appointing Ranga Raju Committee was provided in the complaint submitted by the aggrieved students, who had questioned the petitioner's competence to seek high percentage of marks in the examination in question.

27. On going through the scheme of the Act and Rules it appears that the Vice-Chancellor did have the authority to appoint the Ranga Raju Committee in respect of the complaint which was filed by a group of students against the petitioner and other employees 'of the University in respect of the alleged manipulation said to have been committed in preparing the result of the petitioner in the examination in question. Section 11 of the Act speaks of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor as also the conditions under which he can exercise emergency powers. The Vice-Chancellor is said to be the principal executive and academic officer of the University. Among other duties he has a duty to see that the provisions of the Act, Roles and Regulations are faithfully observed and shall have all the powers necessary for this purpose. He has also the authority to delegate his powers to any other officer of the University. In terms of Section 18 of the Act the syndicate is the executive as well as the Academic Body of the University. It -consists of a number of functionaries mentioned in Section 18(2) of the Act. It has 'numerous duties to discharge under the Act. Among other things it can appoint examiners, publish the result of the University examinations and exercise all other powers of the University not otherwise provided by the Act, Rules and Regulations. The syndicate has complete and undivided responsibility for all academic matters. It has a duty to make all arrangements for the conduct of examinations in such a manner as may be prescribed by the Act or Regulations. Chapter 53 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure for enquiry and punishment. In terms of Regulation 53.4(d) no student can use unfair means at any of the examinations and tests. Under Regulation 53.5 a student is guilty of a breach of discipline if he violates any of the provisions of Regulation 53.4 or is guilty of misconduct or moral turpitude or indecorous and/or immoral behaviour. Subject to Regulations 53.7 and 53.10 for breach of discipline committed by a student punishments are provided under Regulation 53.6. Among other punishment a student can be suspended from the University for one month or any shorter period. A student can be rusticated from the University or can be expelled also. The punishing authorities are the Vice-Chancellor or Head of the Department or the Dean of students or Proctor or Warden or the Chief Advisors of various recognised student activities. The punishment of suspension, rustication and expulsion under clause (d),(e) and (f) of Regulation 53.6 can be awarded by the Vice-Chancellor, who can delegate his authority to punish a student to any competent authority. Before awarding punishment under Regulation 53.6(d), (e) and (f) a student can be suspended from attending classes pending enquiry. Under Regulation 57.21.5 in Chapter 57 of the Regulations a committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor has the power to enquire into the cases of attempt at unfair means in the examination. It has to submit its recommendations after laying down clearly the nature of offence listed in Regulation 57.21.7 to the Vice- Chancellor for consideration and necessary orders. Regulation 57.21.7 enumerates the different categories of offences in which action can be taken. It has a residuary provision which says that the cases not covered by these Regulations are to be decided by the Vice-Chancellor. If a student is found guilty of having made previous arrangement to obtain help in connection with the question paper in cases not covered by the other provision, all examination of such a student can be cancelled for that year and the student can be debarred from appearing at any examination for two more years. However, from the reading of Regulation 57.21.7 it appears that the petitioner's case falls within the residuary category because the allegations against her are not based on something which was found when she was appearing in the examination or when she was found resorting to unfair means in the examination hall. The allegations seem to have been made after the results were out by a group of students against the petitioner with regard to her obtaining help from the paper setters or some authorities with a view to obtaining higher marks than the other students. This case was covered by a residuary power and was to be decided by the Vice-Chancellor. Such a case could be covered by the Regulations.

28. I have briefly given the scheme of the Act, Rules and Regulations to understand the nature of enquiry that was proposed and set up against the petitioner in respect of her conduct in the examination in question in which she is said to have obtained very high percentage of marks to the annoyance of the other students. The setting up of the Ranga Raju Committee by the Vice-Chancellor cannot, therefore, be said to be against the provisions of the University Act or the Regulations framed under the Act.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after the Ranga Raju Committee submitted its report it was for the Vice Chancellor to agree or disagree with that order. If he agreed with the report of the Ranga Raju Committee, he could assume satisfaction and set up a regular enquiry against the petitioner. In the said enquiry the charges pertaining to use of unfair means could be framed by the Vice-Chancellor himself and he could not delegate the power of framing of charge to Chandrasekaran Committee or to Saraf Comittee which were subsequently constituted for the purpose. The Unfair-means Committee which is known as Chandrasekaran Committee appears to have been constituted in terms of Regulation 57.21.5 of the Regulations. The Ranga Raju Committee had in its preliminary enquiry reported against the petitioner that she had known the contents of all the qustion papers of B.E. (Elect.) II Semester examination of 1985-86 to gain advantage over other students of her class in the said examination and she had made additions in her answer book in paper EEN 202 after the examination and outside the examination hall to her advantage. These allegations appear to have been referred by the Vice-Chancellor to the Unfair means Committee with the further direction that the responsibility of all connected with the aforesaid allegations be fixed and action proposed.

29A. There is no doubt that the Ranga Raju Committee had made a report against the petitioner and suggested enquiry in respect of use of unfair means by her in the examination in question. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have appointed the Chandrasekaran Committee after going through the report of the Ranga Raju Committee. Since the report of the Ranga Raju Committee had prima facie implicated the petitioner in the charge of use of unfair means in the examination in question, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor seems to have been within his powers to have the matter enquired thoroughly not only with regard to the petitioner but against the other persons, who are said to have helped or connived with the petitioner in the alleged use of unfair means in the said examination. The Vice-Chancellor was not required to first frame charges against the petitioner and then refer the matter to the enquiry committee. The preliminary report submitted by the Ranga Raju Committee appears to have been made a basis for further action to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor against the petitioner. There is no Rule, Regulation or statute which would oblige the Vice-Chancellor to frame the charges against the petitioner and thereafter delegate his authority to conduct an enquiry to the enquiry committee. The Vice-Chancellor was dealing with the matter pertaining to the discipline or administration of an academic institution and he was not expected to follow the rules, which govern the disciplinary proceedings of civil servants serving under the State. In respect of civil servants it is the appointing authority or the authority higher to the appointing authority, which has to frame charges and if he proposes to have those charges enquired into, he can appoint an enquiry committee. This principle will not apply in the present case. The Vice-Chancellor has a duty to see the observance of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations and he has to discharge duties or exercise powers which he can always delegate to any other officer of the University. Assuming but not deciding, that the Vice-Chancellor was himself obliged to frame charges against the petitioner in respect of the alleged use of unfair means, he could still ask some other authority to do the same and if he has not framed the charges himself that would be neither fatal nor bad so far as the proceedings of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner are concerned. Mr. Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on some service rules and tried to persuade this Court that as in the case of civil servants charges are required to be framed by the appointing authority or the authority, who has initiated the disciplinary proceedings, in the present case also the charges were to be framed by the Vice-Chancellor, who had initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. His submission cannot be accepted because the provisions of the Civil Servants Rules and the Regulations framed under the Roorkee University Act have no similarity. The provisions of the Roorkee University Act and the Regulations framed under it have a different import and object than the provisions of the Civil Servants Rules. The disciplinary proceedings in the case of the students of Roorkee University and the Civil Servants are not analogous. Therefore, the non-framing of charges by the Vice-Chancellor himself in respect of the alleged use of unfair means will not affect the disciplinary proceedings set up by the respondents against the petitioner. It is wrong to suggest that the Vice-Chancellor has not considered the Ranga Raju Committee's report himself. The direction of the Vice-Chancellor to have the allegations enquired into a regular enquiry would suggest that he had assumed satisfaction in respect of the necessity of holding an enquiry against the petitioner about the Charges. The order of the Vice-Chancellor for regular enquiry by the Unfair means Committee against the petitioner, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, as contended by Ravi Kant.

30. The next and important question, which falls for consideration of this Court in this case is as to whether the enquiry initiated by the Saraf Committee which had succeeded the Chandrasekharan Committee had conformed t6 the principles of natural justice. Mr. Ravi Kant has argued that for a number of reasons the enquiry conducted by the Saraf Committee was not fair and impartial. On the other hand, it was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. He has given the following instances in support of his submission :

(a) A group of students, who were com-

plainants against the petiioner, had pressurised the Vice-Chancellor to disband the Chandrasekharan Committee and appoint a Committee, whose members were nominated by the complaintants. The Committee constituted at the instance of the students is known as the Saraf Committee.

(b) The dissolution of the Chandrasekharan Committee was unfair as it was done under the pressure of the students.

(c) The members of the Saraf Committee had a bias against the petitioner and they were predetermined to decide the issues against the petitioner.

(d) The petitioner was refused the documents which she had demanded to enable her to furnish a reply to the charges.

(e) The members of the Saraf Committee were prosecutors as also the Judges against the petitioner.

(f) The petitioner had throughout been protesting about the likelihood of bias of the Saraf Committee which was reflected by the conduct they had exhibited at various stages of enquiry.

(g) The report of the Ranga Raju Commitee could not be used against the petitioner. The Unfair means Committee was obliged to conduct the enquiry in the presence of the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against her and they could not rely on the Ranga Raju Committee report.

(h) Dr. V. K. Verma had appeared as a witness against the petitioner before the Ranga Raju Committee. He was a member of the Saraf Committee and made some effective recommendation adverse to the petitioner.

31. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that out of 63 students, 57 students had presented a memorandum against the petitioner in which they had charged that the petitioner's result of the examination of II Semester in question was manipulated and she was shown undue favour whereby she had secured high percentage of marks. The action of students in making the complaint cannot be said to be objectionable. What had followed, after the complaint was made, seems to have given an impression to the petitioner that the authorities of the University as also the enquiry committee were biased against her and they were not conducting themselves independently in so far as the enquiry against the petitioner was concerned.

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not the actual bias which is to be shown or proved but the likelihood of the bias or probability of the bias is sufficient to invalidate any action against her. It is not necessary for the petitioner to prove that there was a real bias in the mind of the authorities or the members of the enquiry committee. Mr. Ravi Kant has also submitted that the petitioner does not plead mala fide or malice against the members of the enquiry committee or the Vice-Chancellor but the prejudice and predetermination of the members of the committee reflected during the enquiry would show that the enquiry was unfair and the whole proceedings, were conducted in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the bias during the enquiry can be inferred from the circumstances which had shrouded the enquiry and at the altar of fairnes justice and equity the enquiry was conducted in an unfair manner. Some case law was also cited to show as to what is meant by likelihood of bias or probability of bias. In the case of Manak Lal Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, reported in AIR 1957 SC 425 the Supreme Court was considering the case arising out of the Bar Councils Act. It was observed that the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment, the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal because justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. In Hannam v. Bradford City Council, reported in (1970) 2 All ER 690 it was held that a suitor is not required to prove a real bias. The test was whether a reasonable man would say that a real bias existed. Relying on Lord Denning M.R.'s observation it was held that the test is not to find out real likelihood of bias but as to what a reasonable man would think and as to whether justice has been rooted in confidence. If the confidence is destroyed when right minded people would go away thinking the Judge was biased'. In the case of Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon reported in (1968) 3 All 1ER 304, Lord Denning M. R. has observed :

"So far as bias is concerned, it was acknowledged that there was no actual bias on the part of Mr. Lannon, and no want of good faith. But it was said that there was, albeit unconscious, a real likelihood of bias. This is a matter on which the law is not altogether clear but I start with the oft repeated saying of Lord Hewart, C.J. in R. V. Susex Justices, Ex. P. Me. Carthy (1924 (1) KB 256) :

....... it is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance that justice should both be done and a be manifestly seen to be done."

Proceeding further it is said that 'The Court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right minded persons would think that in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his decision cannot stand."

33. The similar view propounded by English authorities about the likely bias and real bias is adopted by the Assam and Nagaland High Court in the case of Manihar Singh v. Superintendent of Police, United Khasi Jaintia Hills, Shillong, reported in AIR 1969 Assam 1. In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 it was held that mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. In this case a member of selection committees was himself a candidate for being selected to the I.F.S. cadre. The dividing line between the administrative power and quasi judicial power was very thin and was being gradually obliterated. The Supreme Court was pleased to make the following observations (at p. 155 of AIR):

"With the increase of the power of the administrative bodies it has become necessary to provide guidelines for the just exercise of their power. To prevent the abuse of that power and to see that it does not become a new despotism, courts are gradually evolving the principles to be observed while exercising such powers. In matters like these, public good is not advanced by a rigid adherence to precedents. New problems call for new solutions. It is neither possible nor desirable to fix the limits of a quasi judicial power."

34. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe (at p. 467 of AIR) :

"We agree with the petitioners that it is one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is in accordance with natural justice and commonsense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting. The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but whether there is a real likelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actaully tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle under lying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court."

35. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2386 the Supreme Court was dealing with a case arising out of the Army Act in respect of a delinquent, who was tried in summary court-martial. It was found that the officer who had punished the army personnel on previous occasion was sitting at Court-martial and the delinquent was not asked whether he objected to be tried by any officer sitting at the Court-martial. The proceedings were held to have vitiated. It was held that the judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial has become coram non judice. As to the test of likelihood of bias, it was observed: (para 7 of AIR) :

"As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what- is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself however, honestly, "am I biased?;" but to look at the mind of the party before him. Thus tested the conclusion becomes inescapable that, having regard to the antecedent events, the participation of officer in the Court-martial rendered the proceedings coram non judice."

36. Mr. Kackkar has also relied on a few authorities to submit that there was no mala fide against the respondents. He referred to the case of Har Govind Pant v. Chancellor, University of Rajas than reported in AIR 1978 Raj 72 (FB). It was observed that he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, abuse or misuse of Government of its power. In that case the High Court did not find any allegation of personal nature. The allegations were held to be irrelevant. In the case of K.K. Murty v. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, reported in AIR 1958 Cal 633 it was held that if a show cause notice is issued in the name of the punishing authority or with its authority consent or approval it would become an act of the punishing authority and not an act of a third party. This authority is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents for the proposition that the charge was given by the enquiry committee and not by the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Kackkar submitied that it was done with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, therefore, it will be deemed to be the act of the Vice-Chancellor. However, elsewhere in this judgment I have held that it was not necessary for the Vice-Chancellor to frame charges himself. He could have delegated this power to the enquiry committee. In the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1170 it was held that the findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality merely because it consulted the Vigilance Commissioner and obtained his views on the very same material. The enquiry officer had not combined in himself the role of the prosecutor and the Judge. The Supreme Court did not find any bias on the ground that the enquiry officer considered the report of the investigation with a view to find out if there was material for framing charges and prepared draft charges. The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate having found a prima facie case at an early stage and framed charges is not incompetent to try the case after framing the charges. On the basis of this ground the Supreme Court refused to hold that there was any bias or likelihood of bias.

37. Mr. Kackar relied on the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein it was stated that there was no allegation of individual bias or mala fide against the members of the Saraf Committee but the way in which they were conducting themselves had given a reasonable apprehension to the petitioner that the members of the Committee were biased against her. Mr. Kackar wanted the statement in the affidavit to be taken as admission of the petitioner that the members of the enquiry committee had no individual bias against the petitioner or malice against the petitioner. It is stated that even otherwise there is no allegation of mala fide against the members of the enquiry committee, therefore, the court cannot presume that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was real. However, as stated above, the petitioner's case is that there was likelihood of bias and not the real bias. She has detailed out the conduct of the members of the enquiry committee and stated that the petitioner's apprehension of likelihood of bias was reasonable.

38. Before advertring to the question as to whether the petitioner's apprehension of bias from the members of the enquiry committee is likely or fanciful, it is necessary to examine the legal position with regard to the inference of bias, whether the Court can insist on real bias or likelihood or probability of bias.

39. Prof. H.W.R.Wade in his treatise on Administrative Law Edition on page 43 and onwards has discussed the reasonable suspicion and real likelihood of bias, after discussing the case law at some length it is stated that there must appear to be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise and conjecutre is not enough. There must be a circumstances from which a reasonable man would think it likely or probable that the justice or the Chairman, as the case may be, would or did, favour one side unfairly, at the expense of other. The Court will not enquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence. This observation is based on the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in the case of Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.O.) Ltd. v. Lannon reported in (1968) 3 All ER 304 (supra). This decision categorically restored the concept that justice must be seen to be done. It rerestablished the mere stringent order of law and justice. Giving causes of prejudice the author has stated that the common problems had already been concerned with the case in some other capacity. This may give rise to suspicion that the Adjudicator was biased. In Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Justices, reported in (1926) AC 586 the House of Lords set aside the judgment of three Justices where the Justices had instructed the lawyer to oppose the licence application and later on sat as members of the compensation authority. It was held to be a case of bias. In a particular case where a person sits with an appellate body to hear an appeal against a decision of his own, as was done by the Chief Constable in the Liverpool Police case (Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309) the decision was set aside as being biased, de Smith on Judicial Review of Adminislrative Action, Fourth Edition has also dealt with the subject of bias. It is said that it is a fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. At common law a person is disqualified from adjudicating when the circumstances point operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue before him.

40. Whether a real likelihood of bias is to be determined from the probability that might reasonably be shown to the party aggrieved or the public at large. It is also a rule of determing as to whether there was any likelihood of bias or not. This rule was laid down in R. V. Barnsley Country Borough Licensing Justices (1960) 2 QB 167. Bias can be inferred when there is reasonable suspicion of bias. It can be inferred from the personal hostility or if there is personal friendship or family relationship or if there is professional or vocational relationship.

de Smith has gone further to say that disqualification for bias may exist where a member of the tribunal has an interest in the issue by virtue of his identification that one of the parties has otherwise indicated partisan in relation to the issue but at common law person is not disqualified merely on the ground that he is a member of public authority or a member or subscriber to the familiar association that is party to the proceedings. He has offered disqualification as he has taken active part or has voted in his favour that the proceedings be instituted for he was then in substance both judge and party. In other cases where the adjudicator has shown partisanship in a corporate or private capacity, he will render disqualification. A member of tribunal giving evidence in a case and then taking part in the decision is likely to create an apprehension of unfairness and as per the requirement of natural justice, it will not be appropriate for witness to adjudicate.

41. The domestic tribunals are bound to act fairly as these Tribunals are clothed with the power to perform quasi judicial functions. They are, therefore, bound to follow the principles of natural justice. Their action should not be fair only but they should appear to be fair. They are bound to maintain impartiality in arriving at a conclusion if they are intrusted with the task of deciding an issue. In recent years the courts in India have applied the principles of natural justice even in administrative orders, which adversely affect or are likely to affect the interest of a person.

42. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court about the necessity of following the rules of natural justice by domestic tribunal it is to be seen now as to whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the likelihood of bias of the Saraf Committee could be inferred and whether such inference is reasonable and what would be its effect on the proceedings against the petitioner.

43. There is sufficient material on record, which is not disputed, that the students, who were complainants against the petitioner, had pressurised the Vice-Chancellor to disband the Chandrasekaran Committee, which was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on 16-9-1986 and was to hold an enquiry in respect of unfair means used by the petitioner in her II semester spring examination. The Committee is said to have been appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under the University Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The students obviously could not be permitted to interfere with the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor in appointing a committee and in nominating the members of the said commiltee. It is stated by the respondents that the members of the Chandrasekaran Committee were men of integrity. The dissolution of this Committee after it had written a letter to the petitioner to submit reply appears to be unfair inasmuch as the University authorities seem to have yielded before a group of students, who are said to have gone on agitation for dissolution of the said Committee and reconstitution of a fresh committee. The powers excrcisable by the Vice-Chanceltor seem to have been exercised by him at the dictates of the agitating students, who had not given any reason as to why the Chandrasekaran Committee was disbanded. The University authorities seem to have allowed the students to intefere with the exercise of their powers. There is no reason on record as to why the Chandrasekaran Committee was disallowed. The Vice-Chancellor had the power to dissolve the Chandrasekaran Committee, if he was satisfied that the said committee would not be able to discharge its functions in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the University. It could not exercise its powers to dissolve the committee at the instance of the students, who have no hold on the administration of the University. The University seems to have succumbed to the pressure of the students and under that pressure the Chandrasekaran Committee was dissolved which could create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the University authorities were subordinating itself to the whims of the students of the University. The apprehension of the petitioner seems to have started with the dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee at the instance of the complainants, who had made a complaint against her and at whose instance the Ranga Raju Committee was appointed. The Vice-Chancellor's power to appoint a committee is not disputed but the method of exercising that power does not appear to be fair, inasmuch as at the whims of a group of students a validly constituted committee could not be dissolved only to appease a group of students.

44. Out of more than 400 teachers a group of students, who had complained against the petitioner, submitted a panel of nine names, among whom the Vice-Chancellor was dictated to appoint Unfair-means Committee. The Vice-Chancellor did appoint the enquiry committee out of the Panel of the names submitted by the complainants. Prof. Saraf was to head the said committee. The ability and capacity of the members of the enquiry committee is not under challenge. The complainants faith in only a few Professors would show that they had been in the good books of the student community and were able to pacify the agitating students. As soon as they were nominated as members of the committee, the students are said to have withdrawn the agitation which would give a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the Saraf Committee was inclined to favour the complainants and was determined to prejudice the petitioner's case. Every prudent man can have such an impression.

45. The appointment of Saraf Committee and dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee at the instance of a group of students can give a reasonable apprehension to every prudent man that the University was functioning under the influence of the complainants and the Chandrasekaran Committee was dissolved because of its impartiality, which was not liked by the agitating students and the Saraf Committee was appointed because it had some goodwill of the agitating students, who had complained against the petitioner. The dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee and the appointment of the Saraf Committee was, in normal course of business, the job of the Vice-Chancellor, but in taking the decision the Vice-Chancellor had acted at the dictates of the students and not according to his own discretion which he was supposed to exercise under the provisions of the University Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

46. The respondents have not taken the Court into confidence, as to what were the compelling circumstances for dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee. The petitioner has given reasons for its dissolution and for reconstitution of the Saraf Committee which are not categorically denied by the respondents. Therefore, it is the circumstance from which an inference can be drawn that the University in exercise of its powers for constituting committees was influenced by a group of students and had dissolved one committee and replaced it by another committee at the dictates of a group of students, who admittedly were against the petitioner. This appears to be a committee appointed by the complainant rather than the Vice-Chancellor. The complainants had a bias and enmity with the petitioner. Therefore, they chose the Judges against the petitioner of their choice and the University authorities were helplessly compelled to dissolve one, committee and nominate another committee.

47. A man with judicial temper is not prepared to believe that there was no effect of dissolution of the Chandrasekaran Committee and constitution of the Saraf Committee in its place. On the face of it it may appear a very normal thing but on lifting the veil it appears that the powers exercisable by the authorities of the Universities were abdicated in favour of the students in the case. The Saraf Committee had good-will of the complainants. Therefore, the inference that it was predetermined against the petitioner is not absolutely misplaced.

48. The Saraf Committee did not issue chargesheet immediately on the basis of the report of the Ranga Raju Committee against the petitioner. It presumed that the petitioner was guilty. Therefore, a suggestion was made to her to appear in the written test in respect of two papers, which were subject matter of the enquiry before them. This was a novel method followed by the members of the Saraf Committee. It shows that the Saraf Committee was predetermined or had a prejudice against the petitioner as it presumed that the petitioner had committed irregularity in the examination and with that impression in mind they started functioning as members of the committee. The letter written to the petitioner by the Saraf Committee suggesting her to appear at the written test before them in respect of two papers would suggest that the Saraf Committee had presumed that the petitioner was guilty of conduct of unfair-means in the previous examination, which had already been held in the Spring Semester. The members of the Committee seem to have started the enquiry with the close mind and were determined to presume the petitioner as being guilty of the charges levelled against her by the Ranga Raju Committee. The report of the Ranga Raju Committee was only a preliminary report. Mr. Kackkar submitted that the report was only a fact finding report and was not a final report against the petitioner. The report suggested further probe because ex facie, according to the report, the petitioner had committed some irregularities in the examination and some other officers were also found guilty of irregularities along with the petitioner. Therefore, without framing charges the members of the Saraf Committee could not and should not have presumed the petitioner guilty of irregularities and chosen a novel method of enquiry by compelling her to appear in the test without there being any requirement for that. By this an inference can easily be drawn that the members of the Saraf Committee were determined to believe that the petitioner was guilty of commission of irregularities in the examination.

49. When the petitioner appeared before the Chandrasekharan Committee the petitioner is said to have been asked to admit her guilt by the' said committee. The students, who had complained against the petitioner, were also present in the deliberations of the Chandrasekaran Committee. On petitioner's refusal to do so, the Chandrasekaran Committee seems to have adjourned the proceedings. There is no affidavit filed by any of the members of the Chandrasekaran Committee to say that this allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner against the members of the Chandrasekaran Committee was incorrect. The members of the Chandrasekaran Committee alone could say as to whether they had forced the petitioner to admit the guilt. After that this committee was dissolved dramatically and at the instance of the complainants the Saraf Committee was appointed.

50. The Saraf Committee is said to have made two recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor one in respect of suspension of the petitioner and the other in respect of withholding of her result. This was done before the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner. However, the Syndicate did not approve the suspension of the petitioner. It only approved the recommendation of the Saraf Committee with regard to withholding of the petitioner's result. Suspension is a punishment under Regulation 53:6(d) and appears to be a substantive punishment, which could be inflicted by the Vice-Chancellor. It can be ordered only for breach of discipline committed by a student. The breach of discipline would mean any of the acts committed by the students under Regulation 53.4 of the Regulations, which includes use of unfair means at any of the examination and tests. Before framing the charges and before holding that there was a prima facie case which would require issuance of chargesheet to the petitioner asking her to submit her reply, the members of the Saraf Committee seem to have made a recommendation for the punishment of the petitioner. It is true that suspension of a student and withholding of result can be made at interim stage also but it has a different connotation in the present case. In the present case suspension of the petitioner and withholding of her result is recommended before her reply to chargesheet is received. It would reflect the working of the mind of the members of the Saraf Committee. This is a circumstance to indicate that they were determined to punish the petitioner and had hurriedly made recommendation for punishing her without embarking upon an enquiry. The enquiry will be deemed to have commenced only after 4-4-1987 when charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner and she was asked to file her reply to the charge-sheet. Before framing the charges they recommended the punishment and did not stop there. They attended the meeting of the Syndicate. where the decision about the petitioner was taken. It may be stated that all the members of the Saraf Committee were the members of the Syndicate also. They seem to have supported their recommendation before the Syndicate. According to the petitioner they had persuaded the other members of the Syndicate to accept their recommendation. However, only one recommendation was accepted and not the other. As to whether any other member of the Syndicate was persuaded by them to accept their recommendation is not material. What is material is the impression which the Saraf Committee's members had given by their conduct to the petitioner as the adjudicators of the cause which was before them. The punishment awarded to the petitioner would be only on the ground that there was a prima facie case against her before framing of charges. That contention was advocated by the members of the Saraf Committee, who were the members of the Syndicate, in terms of their recommendation and had taken part in the deliberations of the Syndicate to get the punishment against the petitioner approved. .

51. It may be stated that the recommendations to punish the petitioner was made on 11-11-1986 and 22-12-1986 by the Saraf Committee. These recommendations were placed by the Vice-Chancellor before the Syndicate which did not approve the suspension. However, participation of the members of the Saraf Committee in the said meeting is admitted in the counter-affidavit. An attempt has been made to qualify the participation of the members of the Saraf Committee before the syndicate but the fact remains that they had participated in the deliberations and the report submitted by them against the petitioner was considered and one of the punishments proposed by them was awarded to the petitioner. Their eligibility to appear in the deliberations of the syndicate is not questioned. They were de-finitely the members of the Syndicate. The question which falls for consideration is whether they could, as members of the disciplinary (unfair means) committee, take part in the meeting to persuade the other members to approve their recommendations. That question of imposition of punishment on the petitioner was decided by secret ballot. It is not the case of the members of the Saraf Committee that they did not take part in the voting which was held through secret ballots. They participated in the voting in which the petitioner's punishment was to be decided. This would definitely give rise to the fact that the members of the Saraf Committee were not functioning impartially. As members of the committee they were not concerned with the decision of the Syndicate. Their job-was to arrive at truth and submit their report to the Vice-Chancellor, who could take action himself but for abundant caution the Vice-Chancellor seems to have placed the matter before the Syndicate and the members of the Saraf Committee were members of the Syndicate also. This would show that they were not only the members of the enquiry committee to hold the enquiry but they assumed the role of prosecutors against the petitioner before the Syndicate and at the same time were judges unto the case of the petitioner. This role of the members of the Saraf Committee would definitely be a strong circumstance against them that they were biased against the petitioner and were determined to see that the petitioner was punished.

52. The petitioner has addressed a number of communications to the Saraf Committee informing them that they were biased against the petitioner. The petitioner had reason to believe about the biased mind of the members of the Saraf Committee. The members of the Saraf Committee were nominees of the complainants and they had refused to supply documents to the petitioner. They had recommended punishment against the petitioner. Therefore, it was natural for the petitioner to think that they were predetermined and biased against the petitioner. Instead of forwarding those letters to the Vice-Chancellor for appropriate action they proceeded with the job as if they were absolute and accountable to none and not bound to adhere to the principles of natural justice. This is itself a ground for holding that the members of the Saraf Committee were predetermined against the petitioner.

53. The members of the Saraf Committee were acting on the report of the Ranga Raju Committee which according to the respondents was a preliminary report, in the nature of fact finding report. It had nothing to do with the profit of the charges. However, it had stated that a thorough enquiry be initiated to fix responsibility for any irregularity which, in the eyes of the members of the Ranga Raju Committee, had taken place. The said report could not be used by the enquiry committee at the back of the petitioner for any purpose whatsoever unless it was put to her and she was asked to explain the contents of the report. The earliest opportunity which she got for replying the charges was after 4-4-1987 when the charge-sheet was issued to her. The charge-sheet apparently is based on Ranga Raju Committee's report. The petitioner would then be able to explain the contents of the Ranga Raju Committee's report but before that the members of the Saraf Committee had adjudged her as guilty and proceeded with the enquiry with the predetermined mind that the petitioner had committed irregularities in the examination. The use of the Ranga Raju Committee's report against the petitioner for recommending the punishment for her by the members of the Saraf Committee were oblivious of the principles of natural justice because they did not want to lose the good-will of the complainants and were predetermined against the petitioner.

54. Dr. V. K. Verma, one of the members of the Saraf Committee who had taken part in the deliberations of the Syndicate also and was a party to the recommendations, which were made by the members of the Saraf Committee against the petitioner for imposing punishment on her, had appeared as a witness before the Ranga Raju Committee against the petitioner. He was appointed a member of the Saraf Committee at the recommendation of the complainants. The Ranga Raju Committee is said to have held the deliberations in which the students had also appeared. Dr. V. K. Verma's name was suggested by the students probably after he had deposed against the petitioner in the Ranga Raju Committee. The recommendation made against the petitioner on 11-11-1986 was subscribed by him also. To what extent he had influenced the members of the Saraf Committee is anybody's guess. Prof. V. K. Verma is member of the Saraf Committee against the petitioner and took part in the deliberations of the Committee and the Syndicate would be a very reasonable circumstance to infer that the members of the Saraf Committee had a bias against the petitioner. A witness had become a Judge'into the cause of the petitioner. What type of impartiality he would have maintained in the committee. He was already under the influence of the complainants. Added to it he was a witness against the petitioner. So he was determined to punish the petitioner. This fact had become known after the members of the Syndicate had met and he promptly tendered his resignation from the Saraf Committee but the mischief which was done till then to the petitioner by his presence in the committee could not be undone by his resignation. Another member had also resigned. The Saraf Committee which was initially of five members, was reduced to three members.

55. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are strong circumstances to believe that the members of the Saraf Committee were biased against the petitioner and the authorities of the University had not conducted themselves fairly inasmuch as they had succumbed to the pressure of the student community and nominated an enquiry committee of the student's choice. These students, were batch-mates of the petitioner and had enmity with the petitioner. They were complainants and at their instance the enquiry was initiated. The members of the Saraf Committee seem to have been under their influence. The complainants seem to have not been able to exert influence on the members of the Chandrasekaran Committee, therefore, they resorted to agitation to get the said committee dissolved and helplessly the University authorities succumbed to the pressure of the complainants. At an interim stage on 12-4-1989 an affidavit was called, by this Court from the respondents. They were asked whether the members of the Saraf Committee appointed on 1-11-1986 were present in the Syndicate meeting held on 8-1-1987. The counter-affidavit was to contain some other particulars about the petitioner's performance in B.E. III Year examination held in the year 1987-88. Dr. M. K. Srivastava seems to have filed an affidavit in response to the Court's directions. He has admitted that the members of the Saraf Committee did take part in the deliberations of the Syndicate meeting held on 8-1-1987 but he qualified their participation by saying that they were only to answer the queries raised by the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the Syndicate. However, they did not disclose the performance of the petitioner in her examination since her admission to the University and result of the petitioner B.E. (Elect.) III Year examination held in the year 1987-88. The respondents did not comply with the directions of the Court dated 12-4-1989 in full. That would show that had they produced the performance report of the petitioner since her admission and her result of III semester of the year 1987-88, their allegations against the petitioners that she had manipulated the result would have been belied. Otherwise there is no reason why the respondents should have suppressed the material from the Court which was required by the Court for decision of the case.

56. From the discussion of facts and law inescapable conclusion is that the constitution as also the proceedings of the Saraf Committee was against the principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience. The petitioner has successfully proved that the members of the Saraf Committee were biased against her. She has not alleged mala fides against the members as that was not necessary for her to do. From the material on record bias is disclosed against the members of the Saraf Committee, The enquiry report based on the enquiry proceedings prepared by the Saraf Committee is ultra vires of the equality clause of the Constitution and is declared as invalid and non-est. The enquiry report cannot be acted upon for any purpose whatsoever, for it is antithesis of the guarantees enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, It has mauled the well known norms which are so essential for upholding the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law. Anything done in pursuance of the said enquiry report is also invalid and has to be treated non-est. The subsequent proceedings with regard to punishment of the petitioner are grounded on the sham enquiry report. Since the said report is declared invalid, therefore, the subsequent proceedings based on the said report are also invalid and bad.

57. The acceptance of the sham report of the Saraf Committee by the University has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court has permitted declaration of the conclusions of the enquiry committee and imposition of punishment on the petitioner subject to the condition that it will not be implemented till the final disposal of the writ petition. In other words, it means that the report of the Saraf Committee as also the punishment based on the said report is to remain subject to the result of the writ petition. The enquiry proceedings are held to be invalid. The enquiry report is also declared ultra vires of the principles of natural justice and is treated as non-est and invalid. It shall be treated inoperative as against the petitioner. Any punishment imposed against the petitioner on the basis of the said report is also declared non-est and invalid.

58. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination provisionally for the subsequent semester under the orders of the Court. There is no impediment now for the petitioner to know her result of all the semesters result whereof is withheld. She is entitled to know the result of all those semesters in which she has appeared in the examination and the result whereof is withheld. The sham enquiry proceedings, report of the Saraf Committee and the punishment against the petitioner, based on ^the said enquiry shall be treated to have disappeared.

59. The result is that the writ petition is allowed. The enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report is set aside as being ultra vires of the Constitution. Any punishment imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report shall also be treated as non-est and inoperative against the petitioner. The interim orders passed by this Court are recalled and substituted by this judgment. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for all the semesters in which she has appeared under the orders of the Court or otherwise, and the result whereof is withheld, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment before the respondents. The respondents are directed to treat the disciplinary proceedings against the 'petitioner as closed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

60. Before parting with the judgment I would record my appreciation for the learned counsel, appearing for the parties, for the able assistance rendered by them during the course of hearing of this case on behalf of their respective clients.

61. Petition allowed.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court

Km. Divya Chandra vs The Vice-Chancellor, Roorkee ... on 17 February, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR1992ALL298, (1992)2UPLBEC1435, AIR 1992 ALLAHABAD 298, 1992 ALL. L. J. 842 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1435, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1435