Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By a resolution passed at the meeting of the State Board held on October 26, 1985, Exhibit 'z' provides the procedure for enquiry. Clause 3(f) defines 'misconduct' as follows:

"Misconduct" shall mean any illegal or wrongful act or conduct which is alleged to have been resorted to by any candidate and/or any member of staff, at, for or in respect of the final examination and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall include..... tampering with the documents issued by the Board or otherwise howsoever changing a candidate's results in any manner whatsoever and generally acting in such a manner so as to affect or impede the conduct of the final examinations and fair declaration of results thereof."

Clause (4) empowers to conduct an enquiry either suo moto or on a complaint about any misconduct and the procedure in that regard so that the Chairman of the Divisional Board may entrust the enquiry into the alleged misconduct to any member or members of the Divisional Board other than the members of the Standing Committee. Clause (5) empowers to entrust the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer shall give a notice in writing to the candidate ...... setting forth the nature of the misconduct alleged against the candidate and call upon the candi-

Bhandari v. Advocates Committee, [1956] All Eng. Law Reports 742 (PC) is also a case concerning the professional misconduct. In proof of the charge it was held that it is the duty of the professional domestic tribunal investigating the allegation to apply a high standard of proof and not to condemn on a mere balance of probabilities. In Glynn) v. (Keele University & Anr., [1971] 2 All Eng. Law Reports, 89 (Chancery Division) relied on by Sri Salve, the question arose whether failure to give an opportunity to the students before the suspension is violative of the principles of natural justice. It was held that the student did not deny commission of the offence, therefore, it was held that the student suffered no injustice by reason of the breach of the rules. Further while dealing with the scope of the inquiry by the domestic tribunal, it was held that the society is charged with the supervision and upbringing of the pupil under tution, be the society, a university or college or a school. Where this relationship exists it is quite plain that on the one hand in certain circumstances the body or individual acting on behalf of the society must be regarded as acting in a quasi-judicial capacity-- expulsion from the society is the obvious example. On the other hand, there exists a wide range of circumstances in which the body or individual is concerned to impose penalties by a way of domestic discipline. In those circumstances the body or individual is not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity at all but in a ministerial capacity, i.e. in the performance of the rights and duties vested in the society as to the upbringing and supervision of the members of the society. No doubt there is a moral obligation to act fairly, but this moral obligation does not, lie within the purview of the court in its control over quasi-judicial acts. The ratio relied on by Shri Salve, far from helping the respondents, is consistent withour view. The ration in In Re: An Advocate AIR 1989 SC 245 also concerned with professional misconduct of an Advocate and higher standard of proof of the charge of misconduct was insisted upon. Equally so in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra., AIR 1976 SC 376. These decisions relied on by Sri Jaitley also do not assist us.

The question then is whether the rules relating to mode of punishment indicated inthe Appendix 'A' to the resolution are invalid. We have given our anxious thought to the contention and to the view of the High Court. In our view the punishments indicated in the last column is only the maximum from which it cannot be inferred that it left no discretion to the disciplinary authority. No axiomatic rule can be laid that the rule making authority intended that under no circumtances, the examination Committee could award lesser penalty. It depends on the nature and gravity of the misconduct to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority. In a given case, depending on the nature and gravity of the misconduct lesser punishment may be meted out. So by mere prescription of maximum penalty rules do not become invalid.