- (1.) THE application for amendment of the cause title as allowed. Office is directed to make necessary amendments in the cause title of the appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court prima facie shows that the trial Court has come to the firm conclusion that the Enquiry Commission has miserably failed to observe two limbs of natural justice, namely Audi Alteram Partem (nobody shall be condemned unheard) and nemo debet esse judexin propria sua causa (nobody shall be judge of his own cause). It is also denied that the order challenged by the petitioner was a non -speaking order bereft of any reasons. These conclusions of the trial Court are based on an elaborate discussion of the factual situation as narrated in the pleadings of the parties. The one man Enquiry Commission came to the following conclusion: After going through all the documents, I am constrained to observe that plagiarism in its worst form has been committed in this, case tarnishing not only the image of the university but also putting the entire scientific community into shame. Such an act should not go unpunished. However, the exact nature of the disciplinary action to be taken in respect of each one of them should be decided by the appropriate body of the University. The report was placed before the Executive Council on 16th May, 2007. On that date a resolution was adopted that apart from the punishment to be inflicted on the discredited authors of the theses, the three supervisors be debarred from acting as supervisor of any PhD candidate under the University in future. Since one of the supervisors was working in the Calcutta University, his case was referred to the aforesaid University. With regard to the other two supervisors, the matter was referred to the disciplinary authority of the Jadavpur University. The trial Court also notices that the petitioner is agreeable to subject himself to a fresh round of proceeding before the University, if his substantial rights are protected by the University adopting adequate safeguards. Numerous grounds were pleaded by the petitioners challenging the procedure adopted by the University. It was stated by the petitioner that no charge sheet was issued to him; witnesses whose statements have been held against him were not examined in his presence; the statements and documents relied upon by the Commission were not made available to him; no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce any witnesses in support of any justification that he may wish to give ; even a copy of the final report of the Commission was not made available. It was produced for the first time along with the affidavit of the University filed in the writ proceeding. Apart from the aforesaid, upon reading the enquiry report a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that it is bereft of any cogent reasons in support of the conclusions. It was also argued that the enquiry report is based on no evidence with particular reference to the allegations that the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism. The trial Court, thereafter, elaborately discussed the justification given by the petitioner in support of the grievances narrated above.
(3.) A perusal of the judgment also shows that the trial Court considered the entire issue on the basis of the law settled by the Supreme Court in a number of landmark judgments. The Trial Court notices - 1. : (1964) 3 SCR 616 (Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen) 2. : (1980) 4 SCC 379 (S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan) 3. : (1999) 1 SCC 45 (VasantD. Bhavsar v. Bar Council of India) 4. : (1990) 4 SCC 594 (S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India).;