JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. This appeal is from the judgment and order dated 3rd July. 1998 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12731 of 1998 filed by petitioner-appellant, challenging the order dated 2nd March, 1998 by which his result of B. A. Part II Examination of 1997 was cancelled by way of punishment for using unfair means at the said examination.
2. This appeal was presented before the Stamp Reporter without certified copy of the impugned order dated 2nd March, 1998. The appeal came up before us for hearing on 6th July, 1998. After hearing counsel for parties, the case was adjourned for the next date and a direction was given that the copies of the impugned judgment shall be prepared and shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties. On 7th July, 1998, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the appeal may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The case was, accordingly, fixed for 13th July, 1998 and it was directed that the record of the ease shall be produced before the Court on that date. The case could ultimately be heard on 15th July, 1998. Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the University placed before us the original record pertaining to this case.
3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner appellant appeared in B.A. Part II Examination conducted by the University of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "University') with Roll No. 76559 from the centre Ishwar Saran Degree College, affiliated to University. Petitioner-appellant was a regular student of the aforesaid college. On 8th August. 1997, while petitioner-appellant was answering 1st Paper of Ancient History, the flying squad of the University entered in the Examination Hal! and recovered 14 printed pages of Aakansha Sure Series (B. A. Part 11) allegedly from the desk or chair of the petitioner. Form Part I prescribed for the use of unfair means was filled same day which was signed by the Principal of the said Degree College as well as by petitioner-appellant and answer book supplied to him was taken and he was given another answer book for answering remaining questions. A notice dated 18th November, 1997 was served on petitioner-appellant to submit his explanation by 28th November. 1997 regarding the recovery of 14 printed pages. Petitioner submitted his reply wherein he stated that he did not keep with him any paper nor he used them but petitioner was answering the questions peacefully when the flying squad entered in the Examination Hall. The other students on noticing the arrival of flying squad started throwing the papers. From out of such papers thrown by other candidates, flying squad took the one and alleged that it belonged to appellant. He tried his best to explain. However, when they could not be persuaded, then he accepted the second copy and continued to answer the examination paper. The Examination Committee did not accept the explanation of petitioner and by order dated 14th January. 1998 cancelled the result of the petitioner appellant in B. A. Part II Examination of 1997 which was communicated to him by Deputy Registrar (Examination) on 2nd March, 1998 aggrieved by which, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12731 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd July, 1998. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard Sri V.C. Mishra, learned senior Advocate appearing for petitioner-appellant and Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the University. The Trust of the submissions made by Sri V.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant was that the entire proceedings taken against petitioner were in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Committee constituted for unfair means has not recorded any reasons for rejecting the explanation of petitioner. Petitioner was not supplied the report submitted against him by the invigilator. The reasoned order passed against petitioner has not been served on him. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not even permitted to appear in B. A. Part II Examination of 1998 and he has suffered irreparable loss of one academic year. Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, placed before us the original record containing the proceedings of the Unfair means Committee and submitted that the petitioner admitted in his own handwriting the recovery of the unfair means material during the examination and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation given has, rightly, not been accepted. Learned counsel has submitted that the punishment awarded is justified and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in appeal.
5. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the original record produced by the learned counsel for the University. Before entering into consideration of the submissions made, it would be appropriate at this stage to notice certain provisions contained in the Ordinances of the University of Allahabad with regard to the unfair means. The words "unfair means" and "possession of unauthorised material' have been defined in clauses (A) and (B) of Ordinance No. 1.2 which are as under :
"(A) Unfairmeans.--A candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfair means" if the candidate is in possession of unauthorised material or if he has transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorised material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall.
(B) Possession of unauthorised material. --"Possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environs or having such material on him in the urinal/toilet or in the passage thereto or therefrom at any time from the commencement of the examination till its end."
6. Ordinance No. 1.4 provides that the punishment prescribed in these Ordinance (Nos. 1.1 to 1.6) shall be awarded by a Committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the Vice-Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The quorum of this Committee shall be three. Ordinance No. 1.5 reads as under :
"The Committee referred to in Ordinance No. 1.4 above shall consider.-
(a) the report, if any. about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material ;
(b) the reply of the candidates, if any, to the notice ;
(c) the report of the examiner concerned, if any, regarding the transcription of non-transcription of the unauthorised material of which the candidate was found in possession ;
(d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University ; and
(e) any other material."
Ordinance No. 1.6 prescribed for punishment and reads as under "The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter ;
A. (i) for possession of unauthorised material, or
(ii) for leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator, or
(iii) for communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall.
Cancellation of the results of the candidates in the examination in question.
B. * * * * * C. * * * * *
7. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Ordinances. It is clear that provisions contain deeming clause that if a candidate is found in possession of the unauthorised material, he shall be deemed to have used unfair means. Clause (3) of the Ordinance 1.2 provides that the possession of unauthorised material by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall. From perusal of the definition provided in clause (B) which says that the possession could be either on the person of the candidate or desk or chair or table or at any place within his reach in the examination hall, it is clear that person of candidate, desk, chair or table, etc. are different places from which recovery may be made. The definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Thus for invoking deeming clause, the place of recovery of unfair means material must be certain and specific.
8. The appointment of the Committee to look into the cases of unfair means in the examination is provided in Ordinance No. 1.4 which shall not be less than five teachers and the quorum of the Committee shall be three. Ordinance No. 1.5 provides that the Committee shall consider the documents mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Ordinance No. 1.6 creates an obligation on the Committee appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4 to award punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance No. 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter. From the combined reading of the Ordinance Nos. 1.5 and 1.6, the legal position which emerges is, that the Committee appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4 has to consider the documents, detailed in clauses (a) to (e) of Ordinance No. 1.5, then it has to place on record that it has examined the aforesaid document and has also to record its satisfaction regarding the facts of the matter.
9. After close scrutiny of the record, however, we find some very unusual features in this case and we are constrained to observe that such a serious matter which is likely to cause serious damage to academic career of student was not taken with that seriousness as required in the Ordinance. The unusual features which we noticed from the record are as under :
(1) The notice served on the petitioner described the charge as recovery of "14 printed pages". Nowhere in the notice, the place of recovery has been alleged, which was a crucial factor for invoking the provisions contained in the deeming provision of Ordinance mentioned above. The report in prescribed Form Part-1 against column 3, sub-columns a, b, c, and d only states that 'A' answer book along with UFM materials taken by flying squad. Column 4 which provides for obtaining self-written report of the candidate against column 1. The entire column 4 which is in Hindi, is being reproduced below :
1-
D;k mi;ZqDr oLrq;sa vkids ikl ls izkIr gqbZ FkhA v D;k ;s oLrq,a vkids 'kjhj ls izkIr dh x;h c D;k ;s oLrq,a vkids MsLd vFkok dqlhZ ls izkIr dh xbZaA ugha ugha gkWa 2-
;s oLrq,a vkius D;ksa vius ikl j[khaA eSaus ugha j[kkA 3-
D;k vkius buls dksbZ lgk;rk ugha yhA eq>s ugha irkA 4-
D;k vkidks bl lEcU/k esa dqN vkSj dguk gSA ;s oLrq,sa esjh ugha gSaA On the third page of the Form, there is heading of charge-memo vkjksi&i=- This column is required to be signed by Chief Invigilator with the date but there is no signature of the Chief Invigilator nor date has been mentioned. The column is lying blank. In our opinion, the notice to the candidate is issued on basis of this column which contains no signature or date-
10. Part 2 of the Form in column 5 provides for the report of the examiner. The report of the examiner in sub-clause (1) of cl. 5 is that unfair means material has not been used by the candidate. Column 2 provides where unfair means material recovered pertains to the curriculum on the examination paper. The report of the examiner is that it is related to the curriculum. It does not say that it is related to the curriculum of the examination. Column 6 of Part 2 provides for the decision of the Committee. In this column, it is written that the examination result of 1997 cancelled and it has been signed by only one person. Column 7 provides for decision of Examination Committee/Vice-chancellor. The column is blank. Then there is a printed form which, it is alleged, is the decision of the Committee appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4. The entire form is printed except the few columns meant for the name of the student, roll No., year of examination, etc. which have been filled in handwriting. There is no discussion in the entire record about the explanation of the petitioner, his answer contained in form one, report of the examiner, report of the invigilator. In our opinion, the Committee has simply discharged the formality by filling the blanks and has given the decision without considering the material aspects of the case.
11. From the narration of the facts given above, it is clear that there is no mention in the notice or in the report of the invigilator about the exact place of recovery of the unfair means material. The desk or chair cannot be one and the same place. In cl. (B) of Ordinance No. 1.2 words person, desk or chair or table have been used separately. One object cannot be recovered from two places at a time, i.e., both from the desk and chair. We fail to understand as to why the flying squad or the invigilators could not pinpoint the exact place of recovery. For appreciating the explanation given by petitioner mentioning of exact place of recovery of unfair means material was very necessary. If the alleged material was found in desk, it could not have reached there unless put there by somebody. As against it, if it was recovered from the chair or from any place around it, the possibility could not be ruled out that it was a material thrown by some body else as alleged by petitioner.
12. Much has been said about the alleged admission of the petitioner regarding the recovery of the unfair means material. However, in our considered opinion, if the question put is vague, the reply "yes" of candidate could not solve the problem. In such circumstances, the reply shall also be vague. The word "yes" written by the appellant could be used against desk, as well as against chair, as question put mentioned both places. If the persons who made the recovery at the relevant time could not point out the exact place of recovery, no reliance could be placed on the alleged admission of the appellant. The Unfair means Committee appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4, in our opinion, miserably failed to consider this vital aspect of the matter.
13. The other replies of the appellant in column 4 of Form Part 1 should also have been examined in the aforesaid context. He has categorically said at that time that the alleged papers do not belong to him. He also said that he did not keep them. He also denied the recovery from him. The alleged admission of vague question could not, in our opinion, be sufficient to invoke deeming clause for using unfair means by keeping in possession unfair means material. For invoking the deeming clause provided in clause (A) of Ordinance No. 1.2, the admission ought to have been clear and unambiguous with regard to place and articles recovered. In the present case, in our opinion, there was no certainty about the place of recovery, hence other replies of petitioner became very relevant and ought to have been appreciated.
14. The third aspect of the matter is about the reply of the petitioner given to the notice dated 18th November, 1997. Firstly, in our opinion, the notice itself was vague as there was no mention about the place of recovery and petitioner was not called upon to submit explanation about the place of recovery. Secondly, petitioner, in his reply, submitted that he had not possessed or used any unfair means material. He was peacefully replying the ' question paper when the flying squad entered into the examination hall. The other candidates sitting in the hall started throwing their papers. The flying squad picked up one such paper thrown by others and harassed petitioner to accept that it belonged to him. It has also been said that he pleaded before the flying squad that the paper does not belong to him but they were not prepared to hear. The explanation of the petitioner was thus on the same lines, as he had written his replies in column 4 of Form Part I. He was denying possession of articles from the very beginning. However, Committee has failed to consider these vital aspects of the case. If the explanation of the petitioner, in absence of the report of the invigilator or flying squad about the exact place of recovery, is considered, there is no material to render it unbelievable. In our considered view, the Committee appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4 miserably failed to decide the matter in terms of the requirements provided in Ordinance Nos. 1.5 and 1.6. There is no discussion in the proceedings about the reply of the petitioner, the allegations against him and the reports of the examiner and invigilator. Had there been actual application of mind by the members of the Committee, it would not have been difficult to notice the aforesaid apparent discrepancies pointed out by us. The decision of the Committee in printed form could not be substitute of a decision taken on application of mind to the material on record. In our opinion, the Committee decided the case in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and such decision cannot be sustained. At this place, we would like to recommend to the University not to permit use of such printed form for giving the decision of the Committee. The Committee of five members appointed under Ordinance No. 1.4, should be asked to consider the cases of unfair means in terms of Ordinance Nos. 1.5 and 1.6 and record its minutes in handwriting by Governor/Chairman of the Committee or any one of the members. By aforesaid observation, we do not mean that the Committee should write a judgment like a civil court. We only want to convey that Committee must discharge its legal obligation imposed by Ordinance Nos. 1.5 and 1.6 by writing in short analytical discussion of the charge, the reply of candidate and about the material available on record and then to record reasons in short to form its opinion for awarding the punishment. Such matters are very delicate and casual handling like in the present case should be avoided.
15. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3rd July, 1998 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.1.98 of the Committee cancelling the result of the petitioner in B. A. Part II Examination of 1997 and communication dated 2nd March. 1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition are quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of B. A. Part II Examination of 1997 within three weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before the concerned authorities. A copy of the judgment shall be sent by Registry to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for necessary action and compliance. However, there will be no order as to costs.