GAJADHAR PRASAD MISRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to us by the Division Bench hearing Special Appeal No. 682 of 1964 which is directed against the judgment of S. N. Ivedi, J., dated 20-8-1964 dismissing Writ Petition No. 5718 of 1968 filed by the appoint Gajadhar Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the appellant): "Whether the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University is required to perform quasi Judicial functions in inflicting punishments upon students for breach of discipline?"

(2.) BY means of an order, dated 2-12-1963 the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University (Dr. Balbhadra Prasad) expelled the appellant from the University with immediate effect" ana ordered that he be not admitted to any class or examination of the University in future. One of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the appellant had not been heard before the order mentioned above was passed against him. It is under these circumstances that the question arose whether the Vice-Chancellor performed purely administrative functions in inflicting punishments upon students for breach of discipline or is required to perform quasi judicial functions.

(3.) THERE can be no escape from the conclusion that whether or not a student has breached the discipline of the University can only be decided objectively on the basis of the material available and is not capable of being determined on the subjective opinion of the Vice- Chancellor. Breach of discipline involves misconduct of some kind. How can the Vice-Chancellor determine whether or not a student is guilty of misconduct unless he has before him material in support of the alleged misconduct and until he has examined that material and satisfied himself that the same is trustworthy and sufficient to enable him to hold the student guilty of the misconduct charged. It is thus clear that the Vice-Chancellor can carry out his duty of deciding whether or not the student is guilty of misconduct only by judging the material in his possession and it is equally clear that he would not be able to discharge this duty properly and fairly or decide the matter justly without hearing the student.