Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In the Questionnaire which the appellant was called upon to reply relevant questions were put to him to which he gave answers. It was pointed out by the appellant that he and the student bearing Roll No. 11750 were sitting in different rows and the seat of the other candidate was not parallel to his seat but he was sitting behind one or two boys. He further stated that he was busy in answering the question paper and he did not know whether the other candidate had copied from his answer book or not. He denied having given any help to Roll. No. 11750 or to have taken any help from him. According to him, he answered the question "with my own knowledge". He expressed a desire to be heard in person by the Standing Committee but stated that he did not want to produce any witness or other evidence in his defence. The Standing Committee also put to him certain questions. He stated that he had done Q,. No. 1(b) in the Physics Paper independently and he could not explain how the mistakes were common in both the answer books. He was specifically asked if there was any common incriminating slip which passed between him and the other candidate to serve as a common source for copying and he replied that there was no such common source. He could not say how the candidate bearing Roll No. 11750 copies his answers. He maintained that he had not copied from the candidate bearing Roll No. 11750 nor had he allowed him to copy from his answer book. He could not say whether the other candidate copies from his answer book without his knowledge. The other candidate Shri Virender Singh bearing Roll No. 11750 was also examined by the Standing Committee on the same date. He could not give any explanation for putting a wrong value in a sum of three numbers but still getting the same result of addition as in the answer-book of the appellant. He admitted that he had obtained only 7 marks in the whole paper while the appellant had obtained 15 marks.

6. The Standing Committee stated in its Order all the relevant facts and came to the conclusion that the Head Examiner had thoroughly examined the answer books of both the candidates and had pointed out the common mistakes committed by them. The mistakes were such which could have been committed only if copying had been done from a common source or by the two candidates from each other. The statements of the appellant as well as the other candidate were not accepted and both were found guilty of having violated the provisions of Regulation 13(b), appearing in the Punjab University Calendar 1970, Regulation 13(b) is as follows : -

8. As regards the requirement of giving information of the precise charge it had been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Standing Committee had come to the conclusion that the appellant as well as the other candidate Virender Singh had committed mistakes in the answer-books while answering the Q,. No. 1(b) and those mistakes were such which could be possible made only when each had copied from a common source or from each other. It was urged that no such charge was conveyed to the appellant and he was therefore not in a position to adequately explain or meet that charge. The law on this point is well-settled that an examinee must be adequately informed of the case he has to meet and given a full opportunity of meeting it. As to what the extent and content of that information should or ought to be would depend on the facts of each case. The examinee can ask for more information or details with regard to the material or evidence which may be sought to be used against him and normally if he makes a request in that behalf, the University authorities, in order to inform him adequately of the case he has to meet, would supply him the necessary particulars or details of the evidence. In the very nature of things no hard and fast rule can be laid down and so long as the Court is satisfied that the opportunity which was afforded to the examinee was adequate and sufficient, it will not interfere with any orders prejudicial to him which may have been made by the University authorities.

9. The fact that the copies of the reports of examiners were supplied to the appellant as also the questions which were put to him in the Questionnaire and by the Standing Committee when he personally appeared before it fully established that he was informed of the charge against him. One of the questions put by the Standing Committee was as follows :

Did any common incriminating slip pass between you and Roll No. 11750 to serve as a common source for you and Roll No. 11750 for copying and thus committing common mistakes?