M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks to quash the Notification No. Exam./Deb/79/3434 -3683 dated October 12, 1979, issued by the Registrar, University of Udaipur, Udaipur, where by the petitioner's M.A. Sociology I Semester Examination (in course No. 514(8) Sociology) was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing in three subsequent Semesters, to pursuance of the decision of the Executive Committee held on 11 -10 -1979, as the petitioner was found guilty of using unfair mean, at the Examination held on 21 -7 -1979.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she petitioner was served notice Annexure 1 dated September 10, 1979, whereby he was interned that a report had been received from the Centre of Examination to the effect that of July 21, 1979, he was found copying from a paper which was lying below his copy and paper. While taking away that paper, he resisted and because of that paper was torn into two pieces. He was further informed that the examiner concerned after scrutinising the incriminating material/report received the Centre has confirmed that he had made use of the material found in his possession. He was further informed that according to the rules of unfair -means of the University, Results Committee after examination of the relevant material/report had proposed awarding the punishment inflicted on him subject to the approval of the Executive Committee for possession of material and copying Under the rules he was thereupon given an opportunity to show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of receipt of Annexure 1 as to why the proposed punishment for use of unfair n(sic)eans during the examination, be not confirmed. The petitioner in response to the notice Annexure 1, sent a letter dated September 24, 1979, (Annexure 2) in which he demanded copies of certain documents and informations, as according to him the documents and the informations sought were essential and relevant to his defence. It was stated in the letter that the documents and information sought would enable him to reply to Annexure 1. The petitioner inter alia demanded a copy of the report received from the Centre of Examination which is made as a basis of proposed penalty; a copy of the minutes of Result Committee which met to announce the result of the paper in which the petitioner appeared along with result sheet and a copy of the minutes of the Result Committee which met to decide the proposed penalty. In his case on the alleged charges of 'for possession of material and copying'. A copy of Annexure 2 was also sent to the Vice -Chancellor with the request that the Registrar may be directed to provide him the required informations and documents. The petitioner also submitted his representation dated July 27, 1979 (Annexure 3) to the Vice -Chancellor and reference thereof was given by the petitioner in his reply (Annexure 2) to the show cause notice. The petitioner averred that while he was still awaiting the supply of informations and documents to enable him to submit as effective reply -to the show cause notice (Annexure 1), the petitioner received Notification (Annexure 4) dated October 12, 1979, whereby he wan penalised and his present examination was cancelled and was further debarred from appearing in three subsequent semesters for having been found guilty of using unfairmeans in the Examination held on July 21, 1979. The petitioner challenged the Notification (Annexure 4) on the ground that the petitioner was not supplied the report of the invigilator; the report of the Centre Superintendent; the report of the Examiner; and the minutes of the Remit Committee. It was also stated that the Result Committee considered the entire material at the back of tie petitioner. The petitioner's main grievance is that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to present his case and he has been punished in disregard of principles of natural justice. The respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted their reply to show cause notice wherein it was stated that in the examination held on July 21, 1979, the petitioner was found copying from a paper which was lying below his copy and paper. The invigilator noticed the petitioner copying and when he tried to take up the hand written paper, the petitioner resisted, in which process the hard written paper was torn into pieces. The petitioner was thus caught redhanded copying by the invigilator. The matter was reported to the Centre Superintendent, who interrogated the petitioner. The petitioner was confronted with the report made by the invigilator Shri U.G. Jain to the Centre Superintendent and his statement was recorded. On inquiry from the invigilator and from the statement of the petitioner, the Centre Superintendent was satisfied that the petitioner was found copying and the torn paper was taken by the invigilator. In his possession from which the petitioner was found copying. The respondents produced the form Ex. A/1 containing the report of the invigilator along with the statement of the petitioner and the report of the Centre Superintendent. The petitioner's case that Dr. U.C. Jain, who was not the invigilator, came to the Examination Hall to settle the personal score with the petitioner and that Dr. U.C Jain, had brought the paper from outside and snatched the answer bock and shouted that the petitioner was copying; and that the petitioner was dragged out physically by Dr. U.C. Jain, from the Examination Hall and was forced to sign on a paper the entries in the column whereof, were blank, was denied and it was stated that the story now invented by the petitioner, is absolutely a myth and in fact even contrary in some particulars to the application submitted to the Vice -Chancellor on July 27, 1979 It was, also stated that a perusal of the hand -written paper and the answer boot of the petitioner will show beyond doubt that the petitioner had copied from the handwritten paper. Subsequently the Result Committee, after examination of all the relevant material, was of the view that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair a ears and then proposed the aforesaid punishment. Thereafter notice Annexure 1 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner then sent the reply Ex. 2. It was submitted that instead of giving reply to the various allegations made against the petitioner, the petitioner applied for the copies of various documents, which were wholly irrelevant and the reply will show that the petitioner has not replied to the charges made against him. Thereupon, the Executive Committee of the University considered all the materials along with the reply Annexure 2 and found the petitioner guilty of using unfair means and the punishment proposed was confirmed. It was stated that the petitioner was given due opportunity before infliction of the punishment and there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the norms of natural justice are not to be encased in a strait jacket of any right rule or formula but must be tailored to suit the requirement of the situation and the exigencies of the case. The petitioner was given notice at both the stages and thus was afford d full opportunity. The petitioner was supplied with the substance of the report of the invigilator as well as the Center Superintendent. Thus, the respondents justified the impugned Notification (Annexure 4) in the reply. The petitioner further filed rejoinder the reply to the show cause notice, in which the reiterated the stand taken by him earlier and refuted the averments made in the reply. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner on being interrogated answered question No. 1 in the Form Rule/1 Part II in 'No'. The question was as to whether the hand written paper was recovered from his possession, person, e(sic)tc. According to the, petitioner after reply to question No, 1, there was no further scope of any inquiry. The questions No. 2 and 3 were wholly irrelevant. In answers to questions No 2 and 3 he only stated 'In hand Only theory'. The petitioner's case further is that before the petitioner could complete the sentence Shri U.C. Jain snatched away Ex R/1. Thus, he could not write 'paper' and complete the sentence. The petitioner clarified what he meant to write was that 'he had only the question paper of theory in hand and no other paper' and according to the petitioner when he put his signatures on Ex. Rule/1, on first page, pages No. 1 and 2 were completely blank, except the petitioner's replies to the questions. The petitioner further stated that the demand of the documents and information was justified and on supply on the informations and documents, the petitioner would have proved that he is innocent and the entire case was concocted against him at the instance of Shri U.C. Jain. The petitioner submitted that no inquiry what so ever was held to the presence of the petitioner and the punishment has been awarded without following the principles of natural justice.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties Shri N.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him. The petitioner had denied the recovery of any hand -written paper from him possession from the very beginning and when notice Annexure 1 was received he made a demand for supply of documents and informations mentioned in Annexure 2. No reply to that letter was given and without giving any opportunity of being beard, the petitioner was awarded punishment. Shri Mathur placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mahendra Mathur v. University of Udaipur and Ors. 1979 WLN (UC) 196 and in Bharat Vyas v. The University of Udaipur, Udaipur and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587/79, decided on March 12, 1180.;