- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the following circumstances: The petitioner Ram Chander Singh had been working as a teacher in the District Board Middle School (now Government School) at Ladwa, district Hissar, between 1954 and 1960. As a private candidate, the petitioner appeared in the M. A. Examination in History Part I in 1960 and was declared successful. In. May 1982 he appeared in Part, II at the examination centre D. N. College, Hissar. The fourth and the last paper of the examination was on 18th of mad 1962, The petitioner had just written a few lines on the very first page of the answer-book when the Superintendent of the examination hall, Ch. Ranjit Singh came to his seat and enquired if the handkerchief, which was in the hand of the superintendent at that time, belonged to the petitioner. This handkerchief had some slips of paper in it containing some writing that had relevancy to the questions that were likely to be set in the question paper for the day. The petitioner denied all knowledge about the handkerchief and took exceptions to the superintendent unnecessarily foisting a false and Wrong charge against the petitioner. The answer, book was taken from the petitioner and according to the allegations made in the petition, he was asked to leave, file hall and bring his headmaster Shri Shiv Charan Singh. Thereupon the petitioner left the hall, contacted his friend Shri Raj Kumar Kumra, development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation, and got a lift on his motor-cycle to Ladwa where he apprised the headmaster of what had happened; and on his request, the headmaster accompanied him and at 4. 30 p. m. met the superintendent. The headmaster assured the Superintendent that the petitioner was a man of integrity and that his suspicions were unjustified. The superintendent fell satisfied but did not permit the petitioner to finish his paper by giving him extra time. On the following day, i. e. , 19th of May, 1962, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Registrar, Punjab University. In this letter he made allegations that the Superintendent was ill-disposed towards him because of some political rivalry and in the last paragraph of his letter he stated as follows:-- "i therefore, humbly pray that justice may kindly be done to me after thoroughly enquiring into the matter. I may add that I should bring to light certain facts and proofs to the effect that I had been victimised and have suffered for no fault of mine. " He did not hear anything from the University for some time till he received an intimation from the Registrar on 4th of September, 1962, that he had been disqualified for the year 1962 and 1963 under regulation 11 (c ). It appears that there after he filed an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor which was rejected. He then came to this Court.
(2.) THE return filed by the Registrar, Punjab University, indicates that the story of what happened in the examination hall on 18th of May, 1962, as was given by the superintendent, is slightly different According to this version. "the Assistant Superintendent (a clerk) suspected that the petitioner had some hand written papers in the handkerchief which lay on the petitioner's table and on which the petitioner had placed his hand firmly. "he reported the matter immediately to Shri Ranjit Singh superintendent. Both the Superintendent and the Assistant superintendent then went up to the seat of the candidate (petitioner)and found that he was keeping his hand firmly on the handkerchief. The handkerchief was unfolded and the petitioner was asked for a statement, as envisaged in the regulations. The petitioner refused to make any statement and even to accept the second (answer) book because the first answer-book which he had just started was also taken in possession according to the rules". Along with the return, extracts from the papers found folded in the handkerchief were put and these clearly indicate that the. " notes related to the subject of the examination on that day. In any case, whether these papers related to the subject of the examination on that day or not, is a question which is for the University authorities to determine, and this Court cannot go into the same. On the basis of this report, sent by the Superintendent, the Registrar, Punjab University, submitted the case to the 'unfair Means Committee' (hereinafter referred to as the committee), duty constituted by the Syndicate for examining such cases the committee was of the view that the petitioner had used unfair means, and disqualified him as contemplated under regulation 11 (c ).
(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that at no stage was the version given by the Superintendent communicated to the petitioner to enable him to give his explanation or proof in support of his contention and that he has been disqualified without being given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.;