1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, serving as an Associated Professor at Government Engineering College, Rajkot, challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority in imposing a penalty of 'forfeiting total examination remuneration, debarring for three years from GTU for all exam related work and a fine of Rs.1000/-', which was reduced to imposition of penalty of Rs.500/- by the Vice Chancellor, for the misconduct on the part of the petitioner that he had kept unassessed portion in more than five answer books; committed error in totaling of marks for the answer books assessed; and avoided observer duty of GTU examined assigned by Zonal Office, Rajkot, by asking for insurance policy.
2 The petitioner, who appears party-in-person, has contended that the answer sheet was examined by him prior to framing of such Rules of imposing penalty and such Rules are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and, irrespective of un-assessed answers, the Rules impose a uniform penalty and the yardstick applied for committing five mistakes and fifty mistakes remains the same and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that even the explanation rendered by the petitioner to the Committee was not taken into consideration.
3 As against the above, the In-charge Registrar of Gujarat Technological University, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has filed affidavit-in-reply and stated on oath that the case of the petitioner was placed before a Committee constituted under the provisions of the Rules and 11 Members of the said Unfair Means Committee found serious mistake committed by the petitioner of leaving number of answer books un-assessed and the penalty, as prescribed under clause 2, to debar the petitioner from any examination work for three years and to forfeit the remuneration paid to the petitioner, was imposed. The said decision of imposing penalty was taken up before the Vice Chancellor upon a representation submitted by the petitioner and, after considering the material on record, the said punishment was reduced by imposing a fine of Rs.500/-, which remains final. In view of the above, it is submitted that the punishment imposed by the Authority is on the ground of refusing to assess answer-sheets of the students, which is vital in assessing the performance of a student and any kind of dereliction of such duties would, on the contrary, invite a strict measure of imposing penalty, but, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Vice Chancellor has reduced the penalty to the tune of Rs.500/- and, therefore, no interference is called for.
4 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is properly considered by the Competent Authority. Initially, the petitioner was debarred from carrying out examination work for three years and the remuneration was forfeited, which was, later on, reduced by the Vice Chancellor by imposition of penalty of Rs.500/- on the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that, for dereliction of duty as Associated Professor in leaving the answers un-assessed, the petitioner has misconducted himself and has played with the future of the students for which the petitioner ought to have been subjected to a strict disciplinary measure. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since the penalty is reduced by the Vice Chancellor by imposition of penalty of Rs.500/- on the petitioner, I find no substance in the present petition. This petition is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top