Karnataka High Court
P. Inbasekaran vs The Karnataka State Law University on 6 February, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.50413/2018 (EDN - EX)
Between:
P.Inbasekaran,
S/o Palaniappan C.,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.29/10,
Maruthu Pandiyar Street,
Kalanivasal,Karaikudu - 630 002,
Shivagangai District,
Tamilnadu State. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.M.V.Hiremath, Advocate (Absent))
And:
1. The Karnataka State
Law University,
Represented by its
Vice Chancellor,
Navanagara, Hubli - 25.
2. The Registrar (Evaluation),
Karnataka State Law University,
Navanagara, Hubli - 25.
3. The Principal,
Basvashree College of Law,
2
Gajaladinne,
Near Sanitorium, K.N.S.Post,
Kolar - 563 101. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Sachin B.S., Advocate for R1 and R2;
R3 served but unrepresented)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 09/11.10.2018 issued by the R-
2 as per Annexure - C and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
None appears for the petitioner.
The petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-C dated 9/11.10.2018, by which he has been punished for the misdeeds arising out of malpractice in the examination held in the month of June 2018 to the extent that he has been debarred from taking next two available examination (in any semester) in all the papers, besides forfeiting his 3 performance in the examination in which he commits malpractice, by imposing a penalty of `500/-.
2. The petitioner is stated to have completed three years LL.B course. He had backlogs subjects. He had appeared for backlog examinations in the month of June 2018 and he was involved in malpractice, which was concluded in imposing penalty under "Ordinance governing malpractice by Candidates appearing in examination and Officials/Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under Section 48(1)(g) of K.S.L.U Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance' for short).
3. On perusal of the records, it is evident that petitioner was involved in malpractice, while writing examination he was caught as he was in possession of a chit and such chit was seized. After due completion of enquiry, competent authority proceeded to impose 4 the penalty in terms of Annexure-C dated 09/11.10.2018.
4. The respondent-University was asked to furnish answer script of the petitioner and chit, which was seized by the concerned authority from the petitioner while writing examination so as to verify whether imposition of penalty is in accordance with Ordinance or not. Competent authority proceeded to impose the penalty as if he has copied from the chit material. On perusal of answer script relating to alleged to have copied from the chit reads as under:
"Since the smriti did not given the commentaries followed from the ....", whereas chit material reads as under:
"Since the Smritis did not agree with each other, they gave rise to commentaries which are otherwise called "Nibandhas". They were written during the period between 700 A.D to 1700 A.D. The Yagnavalkia smriti is commented upon by Vigneswara which has 5 later become the 'Mitakshara School of Hindu Law'. The same Smriti was also commented by Jimutuvahana which later became the 'Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law".
5. The aforesaid material did not match and establish that the petitioner has copied from the chit. Consequently, the petitioner is not liable to be punished under 0.3(5). Accordingly, punishment imposed under 0.3(5) is read down and petitioner is punished under 0.3(4). If 0.3(4) is taken into consideration, punishment would be "The candidate shall not be allowed to take next one available examination besides forfeiting his/her performance in the examination in which he/she commits malpractice".
6. allowed--in-
Accordingly, petition is allowed in-part. In the event of petitioner being eligible to participate in the further examinations, respondent-University are 6 hereby directed to examine and take a decision and communicate such decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-