Karnataka High Court
Selvaganbathy R vs Registrar (Evaluation) on 8 August, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286
WP No. 104415 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.104415 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SELVAGANABATHY R.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO 3, BANNERUGATTA ROAD,
NEXT TO STATION MARKET, GOTTIGERE,
BANGALORE - 560 083.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI,
SRI VENKATRAO DESHMUKH,
SMT. SHIVALEELA ARAHUNSI, ADVOCATES.)
AND:
1. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 025.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
DR. RAMMANOHAR LOHIA LAW COLLEGE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
# 1 & 2, GOTTIGERE, BANNERGHATTA,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 083.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING ORDER NO. KSLU/MPC/DEC-2023(MARCH
/APRIL)/593 DATED 01/07/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286
WP No. 104415 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 01.07.2024 passed by respondent no.1 as per Annexure-B imposing punishment of forfeiture of result of performance in examination in which he allegedly committed malpractice, barred from taking next available examination and also denied to keep term for next higher semester/year or to pursue other alternative Courses during currency of punishment.
2. Sri Aravind Kulkarni learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had joined three year LL.B Course at Dr.Ramamanohar Lohia Law College, Bangalore in the year 2021. After having completed four semesters, he was to appear for 5th semester examination schedule in March-April 2024.
3. On 28.03.2024, while he was writing exam in CPC subject, on ground that he was carrying copy chits his answer sheet was taken away he was asked to sign some papers by respondent no.2 college and was sent out of Examination Hall.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024
4. He was also not allowed to take up other examinations. Thereafter, he was issued with a notice dated 21.05.2024 to appear before Malpractice Committee of respondent no.1 University at 10.00 a.m. on 29.05.2024.
5. But on said date, no enquiry was conducted. Petitioner along with other students were asked to sign some papers without allowing them to read contents even when petitioner asked, there was no proper response. After informing them, that appropriate orders would be passed, enquiry was concluded. It was submitted, entire process was completed without conducting even semblance of an enquiry. Since, petitioner believed that he had not committed any Malpractice and would be exonerated, impugned order came as a shock.
6. It was submitted as it was passed without following procedure for conduct of enquiry in malpractice cases, same was arbitrary illegal and unsustainable. It was submitted specific provision regarding procedure of conducting enquiry namely requirement of recording of statmenets of accused and other persons examined are -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 enquire, reading out of recorded statements and thereafter obtaining signature contemplated under sub-clauses (d) and
(e) of clause (b) of Ordinance Governing Malpractice by Candidate Appearing in Examination and Officials/ Supervisory staff, punishment and procedure under Section 48(1)(g) of Karnataka State Law Universities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Malpractice Regulations') were not complied vitiating enquiry. In view of same, order of punishment would also require to be quashed.
7. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon decisions of this Court in W.P.no.103725/2022 disposed of on 28.08.2023 reported as NC:2023:KHC- D:9562 and Sri Hruday P.B., Vs. V.C., National Law School of India University and another reported in 2021 (2) KLJ 172 to contend that charge of malpractice having serious consequences, procedural protection in form of fair and reasonable opportunity would be paramount.
8. On other hand, Sri Pavan B.Doddatti learned counsel appearing for respondent-KSLU sought to oppose writ petition.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024
9. Referring to records of enquiry which were made available for perusal of Court and contents of statement of objections filed, it was submitted while petitioner was writing examination, he was caught red-handed with copy chits by members of squad. On said day itself, petitioner confessed about malpractice and same was confirmed by Principal of his college as per Annexure-R1. A report was submitted to University, by attaching copy of chit [Annexure-R2].
10. It was submitted evaluation of papers of candidates alleged to be involved in malpractices was being assigned to a Subject Expert, separately to assess whether material in possession of candidate was relevant to subject of examination and used for copying answers. As per Annexure-R3-Report submitted by evaluator, material on chit was relevant to subject matter but was not used for copying. Thus, mere fact that petitioner was found in possession of relevant material during examination, completed charge.
11. In any case, upon receipt of report respondent- University had appointed high qualified senior faculty members as members of Malpractice Committee ('MPC' for -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 short) to conduct enquiry. As admitted by petitioner, he was issued with notice of enquiry and had appeared before MPC. He had signed confession admitting charge of malpractice. Based on same, Committee had recommended for imposition of punishment. Recommendation was approved by Syndicate in its 101st meeting held on 22.06.2024. Thus, entire procedure contemplated was followed and same did not call for interference.
12. Relying upon decisions in case of Controller of Examinations and others Vs. G.S.Sunder and another reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82 and in case of Director (Studies), Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan reported in (2009) 1 SCC 59, it was submitted, in matters of enforcement of discipline, Courts should be slow in interference as authorities in charge of education and whose duty it was to conduct examinations fairly and properly no best to deal with situations and one cannot import fine principles of law and weigh same in golden scales. It was -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 also contended possession of slip during course of examination would be malpractice irrespective of fact whether it was used or otherwise and grant of interim order permitting disqualified candidate to appear in examination would not be justified.
13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
14. From above, it is seen that this Court is called upon to spell on legality of order imposing punishment for malpractice alleged to have been committed by petitioner.
15. As stated above, challenge is mainly on ground of violation of specific procedure contemplated under clause (b) of Malpractice Regulations, therefore a brief reference to same would be necessary. Same reads as follows:
b) THE PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRY AND REPORTING:
a. The Chairman of the Malpractice Consideration Committee (MPCC) shall fix a date for the conduct of inquiry in respect of each case.
b. The Registrar (Evaluation) shall send a notice, by post Under Certificate of Post, to all the candidates -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 booked for Malpractice Case asking them to appear before the Malpractice Consideration Committee (MPCC) for enquiry on the date and time and the venue of the enquiry mentioned in the notice and charge in brief, against the accused.
c. The Registrar(Evaluation) shall also send a copy of the notice to the Principal of the college to serve the notice to the accused under due acknowledgement.
(i) A person served with the notice of enquiry shall present himself before the MPC on the date, time and the venue of enquiry.
(ii) If a person served with the notice of enquiry fails to appear before the committee on the prescribed date but sends a written submission (so as to reach the MPCC before the date of the enquiry) accepting the charges and admitting that he/she is guilty of committing the act/s of indiscipline or malpractice, he/she is charged with, the committee may, without insisting on the presence of the person for the enquiry, submit its report and recommendation in respect of the case to Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the submission received from the candidate.
(iii) In all other cases, a person served with the notice of enquiry shall personally appear for the enquiry. If a person fails to appear before the MPCC the committee shall proceed to decide the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 case ex-parte and on due consideration of the merits of the case, may make its report and recommendation in respect of the case to the Vice-Chancellor.
d. When the accused person appears before the Committee for the enquiry, the MPC Committee shall read out the charges made against him/her and examine the person in the matter of the indiscipline or malpractice charge reported against him/her. If the committee finds it necessary to examine or enquire any other person with regard to the matter enquired into, the committee may do so. The committee shall record all the statements of the accused and other persons examined or enquired in the case.
e. The Committee shall read out the recorded statements to the accused and obtain his/her signature on the recorded sheets, along with his/her statement.
f. In all cases of indiscipline or malpractice, the accused shall defend his/her case personally and no other person shall be allowed to represent the accused.
g. After the completion of the enquiry the committee shall submit its report to the Registrar (Evaluation) for further needful action.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 h. The Registrar (Evaluation) shall submit all the MPCC reports to the Vice-Chancellor at the earliest. Action After the submission of the Report a. The Vice-Chancellor shall place the report of MPCC before the Syndicate at the earliest opportunity. The Syndicate, after due consideration of the report, either, or
i) may accept the recommendation of MPCC and decide to implement the recommended action, or
ii) if it is of the considered opinion that the report or recommendation suffers from inconsistency, non-application of mind in arriving at proper conclusion, noncompliance or wrong application of relevant and appropriate rules/regulation etc., may refer the report back, recording its opinion to the MPCC to review its report. b. If the Syndicate's decision is a(i) and the action recommended by the committee and accepted by the Syndicate is exoneration of the accused, the Registrar (Evaluation) shall inform the decision of the Syndicate to the accused by registered post immediately.
c. If the Syndicate's decision is a(i) and MPCC has reported that the accused is guilty of Indiscipline or malpractice reported against
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 him/her and recommended punishment to the accused informing the Syndicate's decision and asking him/her to explain in writing (not later than seven days from the date of receipt of the communication) as to why the decision of the Syndicate should not be confirmed and implemented.
d. If no reply is received from the person concerned within the stipulated time, the Syndicate shall confirm and decide to implement the decision. The Registrar (Evaluation) shall intimate the same to the accused and take necessary steps to implement the decision.
e. If the person concerned sends a reply to the Registrar (Evaluation)'s Communication referred to in a (C) and the syndicate, after due consideration of the reply, is of the opinion that there is no point for reviewing the decision already taken, then the Registrar (Evaluation) shall communicate the same to the person concerned and take necessary steps to implement the decision.
f. If the syndicate, after due consideration of the reply from the accused to the communication referred to in a (C) is of the opinion that there is a case for reconsideration, then it shall send the reply of the accused with a note on the opinion of the syndicate to MPCC for reviewing its earlier report and
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 recommendation in the light of the reply of the accused.
g. If MPCC, after due consideration of the reply from the accused is of the view that there is a prima facie case to re-enquire the matter then it may do so and make a fresh report with recommendation for appropriate action to the Vice-Chancellor.
If the Committee is of the opinion that the earlier report/recommendation needs no review, the committee shall send the original report to the Vice- Chancellor.
h. In the matter of a report sent back to the committee for reviewing, the Syndicate shall accept the report and the recommendation of the committee and decide to implement the action recommended. The Registrar (Evaluation) shall inform the decision to the person concerned and take necessary action to implement the decision of the Syndicate.
i. Candidate, personnel, etc involved in malpractice and summoned to appear before the committee shall not be eligible for TA & DA as per rules.
For the purpose, the Committee shall have the power to summon, invite candidates, personnel and others.
(emphasis supplied)
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024
16. There is no dispute about receipt of notice and appearance of petitioner before MPC on 29.05.2024. It is alleged that on said day, all students were herded together, forced to sign documents without allowing them to know contents. There is specific contention about violation of procedure contemplated in sub-clauses 'd' and 'e', as there was no reading out of charges, nor recording of statements of accused and other persons in matter of malpractice.
17. Even after placing report of MPC before Syndicate, it is required to either accept recommendation and take decision to implement it or if it is of opinion that report suffers from any defect, refer it back to MPC for review. There is further procedural protection contemplated, that even in case, Syndicate is of opinion that report of MPC was acceptable, clause 'c' of Action after the submission of the Report, mandates issuance of a second show cause notice to show cause against confirmation of its decision to accept report of MPC.
18. Perusal of statement of objections and documents submitted by KSLU do not indicate compliance with above
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024 procedure. In W.P.no.103725/2022 (supra), interference with order of punishment is precisely on said ground. Fact that charge of malpractice would be a stigma on courier of student requiring extension of utmost procedural protection is highlighted by this Court in case of Hruday P.B's case (supra).
19. Insofar as ratio in decisions relied upon by KSLU, it is seen in G.S.Sunder's case (supra), malpractice alleged was interchanging of roll number with another, resulting in failure in exams of such other and interference by High Court was on ground that charge was vague and admission of malpractice was unbelievable and that it could not have been committed without connivance of examiners or invigilators. Hon'ble Supreme Court held, involvement of other would not absolve student of guilt and there was nothing unbelievable about his admission of guilt. In instant case, petitioner signing on report is not disputed. On contrary, it is alleged to be taken forcibly, which attracts invocation of procedural protection.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024
20. In Vaibhav's case (supra), interference by High Court on ground of punishment being disproportionate, which distinguishes present case.
21. Even in W.P.no.205053/2019 disposed of on 12.12.2019, under very similar circumstances, held:
"6. A perusal of the proceedings conducted by the Malpractice Committee reveals that though the petitioner appeared before the Committee, charges were not read over and his plea was not recorded. There is nothing in the proceedings recorded by the respondent no.2 to indicate that any charge was framed against the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, the very basis for enquiry having been taken away the subsequent proceedings conducted by the petitioners by examining witnesses on behalf of respondent no.2 do not assume any significance. Since the enquiry conducted by respondent no.2 is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the above notification, solely on this ground, the impugned order at Annexure-G and the consequent punishment imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside."
22. In view of above, it is held that impugned order suffers from violation of procedure contemplated in law and calls for interference.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11286 WP No. 104415 of 2024
23. Hence, writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 01.07.2024, passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure- B, is set-aside, reserving liberty to respondent University to redo enquiry. Consequently, there would be no impediment for petitioner to appear in ensuing exams.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1