HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2014 DATED:13.11.2014 Between:
The Registrar Osmania University Hyderabad … Appellant And Battala Sneha and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is admitted.
2. Learned Lawyer for the writ petitioner – respondent appears and takes notice of the appeal.
3. Having regard to the nature of the matter we think it appropriate to dispose of the appeal finally today itself without observing usual formalities.
4. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dt.20.10.2014 whereby His Lordship has been pleased to allow the writ petition by granting the relief as prayed for and also awarding costs.
5. The short fact of this case is that the petitioner is an examinee of B.E. 1st Year examinations and in the examination hall she was alleged to have resorted to malpractice and hence her answer script was seized and her examination was cancelled. Of course, before the impugned order of punishment was passed, she was served with a notice asking for an explanation which she submitted. After receipt of the same, the impugned order of punishment, which was challenged before the learned trial Judge, was passed. It was found by His Lordship that there is no reason in the impugned order of punishment why such an action was taken. It was also found by His Lordship that material annexed to the writ petition favour the petitioner’s case that she did not indulge in malpractice. The learned trial Judge also found that the explanation and plea taken by the writ petitioner was not considered at all. His Lordship, after considering the material, decided to adjudicate the matter in his own way and that is how the appeal is preferred by the University contending that there are materials against the petitioner - appellant and after considering the report of the expert, the decision was taken to award the punishment. The learned Judge ought not to have interfered with the impugned order that contain reason with materials in contrast to devoid of materials.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner – respondent, on the other hand, says that the petitioner’s explanation based on materials was not accepted and improperly it was rejected. Apart from that, the impugned order is a non-speaking one. He therefore supports the order of the learned trial Judge.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. We agree with His Lordship’s finding that the impugned order of punishment is a non-speaking order. Mere recording some statement that ‘after considering the evidence and materials’ is not sufficient for taking a decision and according to us, this is not the decision making process as it require legally in a case like this. After all the fate of an examinee is involved and therefore the plea and explanation taken by her must have been dealt with specifically as to why such plea is unacceptable. Nothing is forthcoming in the impugned order. At the same time, we are of the view that when the Writ Court found that the decision making process is not just and proper and there is a scope for taking a decision afresh, Writ Court should not have embarked upon undertaking exercise of taking a decision by itself. According to us, such exercise is tantamount to usurption of jurisdiction of the statutory authority on unjustified cause. We are unable to accept the decision making process of the learned trial Judge consequently decision thereon in favour of the writ petitioner at this stage.
8. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal by modifying the order of the learned trial Judge in the manner as follows.
We direct the Controller of Examinations, second respondent herein, to issue a notice to the writ petitioner - respondent and give her hearing and after considering her contention and the materials, he must come to a decision by passing a speaking order, meaning thereby whether her plea or explanation to the allegations of malpractice in the examination hall is acceptable or not. Such a finding must be reached basing on legally acceptable materials. This decision making process as also ultimately the decision is to be arrived at without being influenced by the findings of the learned trial Judge or that of the impugned order. Let the fresh exercise be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 13.11.2014 bnr