Decided on September 09,1970



- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order and judgment of p. K. Banerjee, J. dated 16th February, 1970.
(2.) THE petitioner is a student of the R. G. Kar Medical College. The petitioner was admitted as a pre-medical student in 1965 and he has passed the first M. B. B. S. examination Part I in 1968. The petitioner appeared in the first M. B. B. S. examination Part II in December. 1968. After the publication of the result the petitioner found that he has been reported against. By p. letter dated 14th February, 1969, the petitioner was asked by the Secretary, Board of Discipline to appear before the sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline On the 26th February, 1969 as it was stated that there was a report against the petitioner that he has committed breach of discipline in the examination hall. In the charge-sheet it has been stated that the petitioner was found copying from some printed pages and he was found to be in possession of certain printed pages detached from a book while he was appearing for his Physiology paper. The petitioner appeared before the Board. We have the affidavit of one Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutta, who was the Secretary of the Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Medicine and who acted as a member of the Sub-Committee of the Board of discipline. He states in his affidavit in paragraphs 5 and 6 that the petitioner was interrogated by the members and further that all papers and documents relevant for the case including the report of the invigilator and loose papers which were found and seized from the custody of the petitioner at the examination centre were shown to the petitioner. In the said paragraphs it was stated that the petitioner was asked to explain his conduct. It has been asserted that the petitioner did not give any satisfactory explanation apart from a bare denial. The petitioner was asked to explain the circumstances under which loose papers were seized from his custody. The petitioner could not, according to the affidavit of Mr. Dutta give any satisfactory explanation. It has been further stated clearly that the petitioner did not demand production of either the Presiding Officer who forwarded the case to the University authorities or the said invigilator who seized the incriminating papers and documents from the custody of the petitioner. After consideration of the conduct of the petitioner and the report the petitioner was reported against and the committee recommended that the petitioner's examination be cancelled and be debarred from appearing in M. B. B. S. examination Part II for next two terms.
(3.) IN the petition under Article 226 moved by the petitioner challenging the action of the University sevens grounds were taken but mainly one ground was urged before the learned trial Judge and only one ground has been pressed before us and that is the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It was not specifically stated in the petition that the invigilator was not produced for examination by the petitioner. That would be apparent from the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Upon this it appears that the learned trial Judge gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner stated that the University never produce the person who reported the occurrence before the Sub-Committee and as such it amounted to a denial of valuable right of the petitioner. Banerjee, J. , was of the opinion that because the invigilator was not produced for examination, there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and as such the petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity. Upon that ground the learned Judge has made the rule absolute and has directed the University authorities to publish the examination result and has cancelled the order of the University. This appeal is by the University and it is directed against the aforesaid order of Banerjee, J.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.