Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Malvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2014
Bench: A. M. Khanwilkar, Shantanu Kemkar
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. No. 8372/2014
Nikita Saxena .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 9657/2014
Dilip Malvi and others .....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 11077/2014
Ms. Alankrita Tiwari .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 12485/2014
Rahul Sariya .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 12500/2014
Anurag Tripathi .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 13361/2014
Ku. Samiksha Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 15754/2014
Ms. Supriya Kranti .....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
2
W.P. No. 15529/2014
Lalit Chopra and others .....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
W.P. No. 16188/2014
Tejaswi Sharma .....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
=============================================
Coram:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, J.
=============================================
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents.
=============================================
Whether approved for Reporting: Yes
O R D E R (Oral)
{16th October, 2014} Per A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice:
In all these petitions, the order passed by the Registrar of the respondent-University dated 18.06.2014 has been assailed by way of this writ petition. 3
2. The principal ground, which has been urged and which commends to us, is that the decision has been taken by the respondent-University without giving any opportunity, whatsoever to the petitioners, much less, by following due process.
3. For the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to advert to all the factual matrix which has given rise to filing of these petitions, except to observe that the respondent-University by the impugned order cancelled the examination and rusticated the named candidates (including the petitioners) for a period of three years from the date of the order to appear in the examination conducted by the University. The sole basis mentioned in the order is that criminal cases have been instituted against all 136 candidates named in the said order (including the petitioners) in respect of unfair means committed during the examination conducted by the University and in respect of which charge-sheet (police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.) has already been filed before the concerned Criminal Court. From the said charge-sheet, it is noticed that the petitioners/candidates referred to in the order have admitted their guilt in their statement recorded by the 4 Investigating Officer. The other reason noted in the impugned order is that perusal of the charge-sheet clearly indicates that the candidates referred to in the order, against whom action has been taken, were party to the racket (conspirators) working with ulterior design to commit unfair means during the examination. No other reason is forthcoming from the impugned order.
4. Indeed, during the course of the argument, counsel for the respondent-University invited our attention to the reply filed by the University and, in particular, the minutes of the UFM Committee dated 11.06.2014 which refers to other reasons. Even if we were to accept this argument, that two more reasons had weighed with the UFM Committee to proceed against the candidates referred to in the impugned order, the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed against 136 candidates without giving proper show cause notice to all the petitioners and, in particular, without referring to the basis on which the respondent-University intends to take such a drastic action of rusticating the petitioners from appearing in the University examination for the next three years.
5. It is well established position that the statement made before the police during investigation cannot be used 5 against the accused. Further, merely on the basis of contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police in criminal case pending against the accused, the civil action of this nature cannot proceed unless proper show cause notice is issued to the person likely to be affected by the decision and to give him opportunity to defend himself and further by conducting inquiry at the level of the respondent- University itself. It is only after complying with these formalities one can assume that due process has been followed by the respondent-University and principles of natural justice have been adhered to. Somewhat similar situation was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shishuvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P. and others1 .
6. The legal principles underlying this decision would apply to the case in hand. Suffice it to observe, that the impugned order suffers from the vice of principles of natural justice and, in fact, is not in consonance with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation filed by the petitioners being Writ Petition No.2794/2014, dated 07.03.2014, Supriya Kranti Vs. 1 W.P. No.9690 of 2014 & companion matters decided on 24.09.2014 6 Barkatullah University & Another2. Even in that order, the Court had made it amply clear that if the University proposes to take action of rusticating the concerned candidate, may do so after giving due opportunity to the concerned candidate and as per the other requirements of the Regulations and Ordinance applicable to such enquiry.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent-University to proceed against the candidates named in the impugned order (including the petitioners) afresh after giving them proper opportunity and following necessary procedure as prescribed by the governing Regulations and Ordinance of the University.
8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned order has been set aside the petitioner be permitted to appear in the examination scheduled to be held on 18.10.2014. We are not inclined to grant this relief. Instead, we agree with the submissions made by the University that, as observed in the order dated 01.10.2014, petitioners can be permitted to appear in the supplementary examination to be conducted within two months. The respondent-University, 2 I.L.R. (2014) M.P. 705 7 through counsel, assures to complete the inquiry well in advance to enable the successful petitioners to appear in the ensuing supplementary examination. The inquiry against the petitioners will be commenced not later than one week from today and will be completed atleast two weeks' before the commencement of the supplementary examination; and if the petitioner(s) are absolved and extricated from the allegations levelled against them in the said inquiry, their application forms to appear in the supplementary examination will be accepted by extending the last date therefor and ensuring that each of the petitioner is permitted to appear in the supplementary examination. We find this stand to be just and fair for which reason, we decline to accede to the request of the petitioner to hasten the process or allow the petitioners to appear in the examination, which is scheduled to commence day after tomorrow. For, the prior formalities for issuance of Hall Ticket cannot be completed by that time.
9. Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Shantanu Kemkar)
Chief Justice Judge
AM