- (1.) THE petitioner is a student of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He gave his B.A. III year Examination, 1991 in respect of which he received a charge sheet on 31 -7 -91 alleging use of unfair means. True copy of the charge sheet is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said charge sheet shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had inserted pre -written sheets inside the title covers of the copies in two papers. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges. True copy of the reply is Annexure '2' to the writ petition. Subsequently an order dated 26 -10 -91 (Annexure 3 to thepetition) has been communicated to the petitioner in which it is stated that the petitioner's B.A. III year result for 1990 -91 is cancelled and he is debarred from appearing at the examination up to 1993. The petitioner has challenged the said order by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) COUNTER Affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. I have heard Shri Shyam Narain for the petitioner and Shri Dileep Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Dileep Gupta produced before me the answer copy and he contended that thepetitioner had inserted pre -written sheets inside the answer copy. Shri Gupta pointed out that whereas in the pre -written sheets the punch marks with the letters 'AMU'are faint, the pages which are not pre -written bear a stronger impression of the said letters 'AMU'. Shri Dilip Gupta also contended that the letters 'AMU' in the pre -written sheets'are not in the exact place as in the other sheets which are not pre -written, and thus they are not tallying. From these circumstances, Shri Gupta has urged that the petitioner had inserted pre -written sheets.
(3.) IN para 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the answer copy alleged to contain the pre -written sheets was not shown to him at the enquiry. In reply to this allegation, it has been stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that it was not necessary to show the answer copy to the petitioner and that the Scrutiny Committee which is a body of experts had examined the petitioner's reply at length. In my opinion the principles of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been shown the answer copy at the enquiry and given an opportunity to inspect the same. The answer copy was the only material allegedly against the petitioner, and since the petitioner was not shown the answer copy which allegedly contained prewritten sheets in my opinion the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is a recognized principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used against a party then that party must be confronted with that material and given an opportunity toexplain it. This was evidently not done in the present case. In Sur Enamel and Stamping Works, Ltd. and Their workmen, 4963 (2) LLJ 367 : (AIR 1963 SC 1914) the Supreme Court held that if any material is used against a charge sheeted employee without giving him copy of the same and without giving him an opportunity to explain the same it will be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In State of Assam v. M. K. Das, AIR 1970 SC 1255, the Supreme Court held that if material is used against the accused in an enquiry behind his back without disclosing the same to him the enquiry proceeding shall stand vitiated. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Muniruddin, 1990 (4) SCC 464 the facts were that the respondent as a bus conductor and the charge against him was that he erased the way -bills and resold some already -sold tickets. At the enquiry the copies of the way -bills of the relevant dates and carbon copies of the checking report were not shown to him. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice had been violated. In the present case the main evidence against the petitioner is the alleged pre -written sheets which were not shown to him. As such, as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid mentioned cases, the rules of natural justice have been violated.;