Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41870 of 2018 Petitioner :- Avanish Singh Respondent :- Vice Chancellor Allhabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Datta Pandey
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brajesh Datta Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
On the basis of instructions, Sri Brajesh Datta Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the result of the 4th Semester L.L.B. Examination of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner was found using unfair means in the examination. The order has been passed in this regard by the Examination Controller.
Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.
It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any straitjacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full- fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice.
No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petition pending. With consent of parties, the following directions are being issued:
I. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.1 to execute the following directions.
II. The petitioner shall submit a representation in regard to the cancellation of his result for use of unfair means.
III. The respondents-authorities shall provide the material which is adverse to him and was relied upon to cancel his result for using unfair means.
IV. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity to tender his response to such adverse material.
V. The respondent no.2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the defence tendered by the petitioner and the material in the record in accordance with law.
VI. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The same has to be verified by the competent authority after independent application of mind in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Ashish Tripathi