MOHD YAKUB ANSARI Vs. DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :- The petitioner had appeared for the B.A. Part III examination held by the respondent University in March 1984. The examination centre of the petitioner was Islamia Karimia Degree College and the roll number assigned to the petitioner was 328. On 23-3-1984, while the petitioner was answering the first paper in Political Science, the Superintendent of the examination centre noticed, while on round, that the petitioner was inserting a chit in his under garment. The petitioner was, therefore, brought by the Superintendent to the Control Room and the Superintendent requested Dr. Sakalla to make a search. On search being made, a chit was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner but the petitioner snatched away that chit and ran away. Dr. Sakalla and a Peon ran after the petitioner but the petitioner could not be apprehended. Hence a memorandum R/2 was drawn up by the Superintendent and a report to that effect was made by the Superintendent to the University. A show-cause notice dated 30-7-1984 was issued to the petitioner by the Registrar of the respondent University and the petitioner was informed that he should submit his reply within a fortnight and that in case he desired oral hearing, he should appear before the Committee on 18th August 1984 at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13-8-84 but did neither pray for any oral hearing on nor did he appear on the date of the hearing before the Committee constituted to consider the cases of candidates found using unfair means at an examination. After consideration of the material before it, the Committee passed an order debarring the petitioner from appearing at any examination of the University till the main examination to be held in the year 1986. This order was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar on 6-9-1984. It is this order that is assailed by the petitioner by this petition filed on 9-9-85.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, Shri Khan, the learned counsel, raised the following contentions; (1) That there was no foundation for taking action against the petitioner by the University as he was not been using or attempting to use any unfair means; (2) that in the show-cause notice sent to the petitioner, the material on which the action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner, was not disclosed; (3) that after receiving the reply of the petitioner, the Committee did not inform the petitioner that it was not acceding to the request of the petitioner to stay proceedings and was proceeding with the enquiry; (4) that no enquiry was held into the allegation made by petitioner; (5) that the provisions governing conduct of enquiries in such matters were not complied with; (6) that from a perusal of the order passed against the petitioner, it was apparent that there was no application of mind by the Committee; (7) that the Committee was not competent to impose the penalty, which it imposed on the petitioner and (8) that in any event, the petitioner could be debarred from appearing at any examination only for one year.