ORDER
1. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage. Shri Hyder Husain, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, has made available the original record of both the petitioners at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
2. Both the petitioners were students of Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad, an institution affiliated to the University of Allahabad. Both were appearing in examination of IIIrd Year Course of B.Tech, Agriculture Engineering held for the Session 1992-93.
3. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1, while answering the IIIrd Paper of Electrical Machine on 22-4-1994, was wearing shirt on which he had written two lines containing formulas relevant to the paper Electrical Machine. The report of the Class Invigilator is being reproduced below for better appreciation :--
"On his shirt, he had written two lines containing formulas relevant to the paper Electrical Machine."
On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Chief Invigilator of the Examination Centre submitted a report and petitioner No. 1 was served with a show-cause notice dated 5-5-1994. The notice given to the petitioner No. 1 was as under:
"SHIRT PAR HASTA LIKHIT PAYA GAYA JISKO DEKH KAR LIKHTE HUYE PAKDE GAYE."
4. It is noticeable here that the report of the Invigilator against petitioner No. 1 and the allegations in the notice against him are materially different. Petitioner No. 1 submitted his reply. The entire material was forwarded to the University along with the letter of the Principal of Allahabad Agriculture Institute. This letter contains further improvement with regard to allegations against petitioner No. 1. It appears to be appropriate to mention the whole letter dated 25-4-1994 addressed to the Registrar of the University of Allahabad which is part of the record:
"This is to inform you that Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava of B.Tech. Agriculture Engineering Illrd Year was caught copying from written material on his shirt by head invigilator in Electrical Machine Paper IIIrd, When questioned by flying squad, he left the Examination Hall, leaving his answer book. He refused to hand over the shirt and did not sign the U.F.M. Form. His Roll Number is 636. Kindly refer the matter to U.F.M. Committee and take suitable action."
On the basis of the aforesaid material the Committee drew the following conclusion:--
"The report of the invigilator and the Centre Superintendent shows that material relevant to the paper was written on shirt. Since the candidate left the Examination Hall when questioned leaving his answer books, it is clear that the material pertained to the subject and was used by him. It is, therefore, recommended that the result of B.Tech. III Agriculture Engineering III, 1993, be cancelled and debarred from 1994 examination."
5. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid remarks clearly shows that the Principal while forwarding material for action and the Committee read something more which was not on record. The report of the invigilator was very simple that two lines were written on the shirt which contained material relevant to the paper. He neither said that petitioner was caught copying with material nor it has been said that on being questioned, he left the Hall nor it has been said that on demand he refused to hand over the shirt, it is difficult to imagine on the basis of which material these allegations could be raised against the petitioner. Even the notice served on the petitioner shows that petitioner was caught copying which is altogether different from the report of the invigilator. The Committee has drawn inference against the petitioner of copying merely on the ground that on being questioned, the petitioner left the Hall leaving his answer book.
6. I have considered this aspect of the case. From a perusal of the answer book it appears that petitioner has answered all the five questions and at the end he has written 'finished'. He has been awarded marks against all the five questions. Thus as the petitioner had already answered all the questions, the normal conduct for him was to leave the Hall. Further, the invigilator has not said any word against the petitioner that he left the Hall on being questioned. Thus the Committee was not justified to conclude against the petitioner in the manner it has done. From a perusal of the record, I find myself unable to restrain from making observation that in these serious matters involving career of students, such casual and irresponsible findings are given without realising the gravity of the matter and wholly unconcerned with the career of the students. The letter of the Principal is further astonishing as it raises many allegations against the petitioner which are not available on record. Why these improvements were made which could influence the mind of the unfair means committee is also a noticeable fact in this case. In my opinion, the University must consider the aforesaid aspects of the case before closing this case. The punishment awarded to the petitioner No. 1 cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances narrated above.
7. Now, coming to the case of petitioner No. 2, the allegation against him was that on 2-5-1994 while answering the VIII Paper of Electronics, the written matter related to the subject of the paper was recovered from his possession. The Chief Invigilator of the Examination Centre has reported that the examinee was keeping written material with him and when he was asked to sign on the U.F.M. Form, he refused to sign and left the Examination Hall. The written material is on record, a perusal of which clearly shows that it was prepared for being used in the examination for answering questions of second paper There were as many as 11 notings relating to the subject. The Unfair Means Committee has also concluded that the attached material has been used for answering question 7-B and thus the result of B. Tech. III of 1993 has been cancelled and petitioner No. 2 has been debarred from appearing in the examination of 1994. Learned counsel for petitioner, however submitted that in case of petitioner No. 2 principles of natural justice have been violated as the written material which is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner was not shown to him at the time of enquiry. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in case of Mohammad Rauf-ul-Azam v. Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh reported in (1992) 1 UPLBEC 642.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel with regard to petitioner No. 2. However, in the writ petition no such allegations has been made that the petitioner expressed his desire to see the chit which was recovered from him and he was refused such opportunity. The relevant Ordinances do not contain any such obligation on the part of the Committee. If such an opportunity was denied to the petitioner, it should have been specifically pleaded so that the respondents could answer the same. In absence of such pleading, the case relied on is clearly distinguishable and does not help the petitioner in any manner.
9. From the material on record it is clear that the conclusion has been rightly drawn against petitioner No. 2 and no interference is required by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
10. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed. The order dated 16-6-1994 cancelling result of petitioner No. 1 Santosh Kumar Srivastava bearing Roll No. 636 and debarring him from the corresponding subsequent examination of 1994 is hereby quashed. However, the impugned order is maintained so far petitioner No. 2 Rajeev Kumar Sinha bearing Roll No. 639 is concerned. Respondents are directed to de-clare the result of petitioner No; 1 without any further delay. Respondent No. 1 is further directed to look into the record pertaining to petitioner No. 1 and enquire into seriously as to how and in what circumstances the developments were attempted to be made against the petitioner No. 1 which were not warranted from the material on record. There will be no order as to costs.
11. Order accordingly.