Dismissed

Jose T.J v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016WP(C)/2910/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ challenge to a University order cancelling examinations and debarment for malpractice. The court held that the enquiry by the Syndicate Standing Committee was sufficient and found no prejudice in not providing witness copies or considering the petitioner's explanation in an elaborate order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order u/o 113/EAII/1/8/2016/EXAM is upheld; writ petition is dismissed.

Jose T.J Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2910 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOSE T.J., THADATHILANICKAL HOUSE, TC NO.18/1212-12, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 686 560.

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.

¶12

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.

¶13

4. THE SYNDICATE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 2910 of 2016 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.35/CAMP/ADGP/ 2015-NEZ DATED 10.5.2015, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2581/C/2015/AC.C DATED 11.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 3717/2015/GAD DATED 19.5.2015.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(R) NO. 1/2016/GAD DATED 1.1.2016 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO NO.EM-III/LLM/SMP/2015 DATED 20.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EM-III/LLM/SMP/2015 DATED 23.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 11.8.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE SYNDICATED STANDING COMMITTEE ON STUDENTS DISCIPLINE WELFARE AND GRIEVANCES.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO, WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

¶29

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.113/EAII/1/8/2016/EXAM. DATED 6.1.2016, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-XI (EXAMS).

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶36

=============== W.P. (C) No. 2910 of 2016

¶37

==================

¶38

Dated this, the 23^rd day of November, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Petitioner challenges Ext.P10, an order passed by the University accepting the findings of the enquiry report against the petitioner and cancelling all the examinations written by him in April/May 2015 and debarring him from appearing for any examination of the University, before May, 2016. Petitioner submits that the decision taken by the University is against all procedural formalities. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that though the petitioner was given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause memo and enquiry report, petitioner having filed Ext.P9 explaining all the allegations levelled against him, but, the University did not consider any such explanation and had proceeded to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that with reference to the very same incident, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director General of Police and after taking evidence of all the persons involved in the matter and perusing the documents relating to the same, it was found that in order to ascertain more

¶41

W.P(C) No.2910/16

¶42

-:2:-

¶43

details and to clear all doubts with regard to the alleged incident, further probe is highly essential into the matter and the same has to be got conducted through CBCID or through any other agency. It was further recommended that after obtaining reports from the CBCID and the Sub Committee of the University Syndicate, appropriate decision as deemed fit may be initiated in the matter. Learned counsel submits that when the disciplinary authority of the petitioner had already conducted such enquiry and could not come to a conclusion that the petitioner was actually involved in the malpractice, the report of the Committee, Ext.P8, has no basis, which should not have been taken into consideration by the University.

¶44

A further contention that had been raised is that the statements of various witnesses had been taken by the Syndicate Standing Committee behind the back of the petitioner, and copies of the statements were not furnished to the petitioner.

¶45

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 inter alia stating that Ext.P1 enquiry report does not decide any matter and there is no conclusion in the said report. The report only points out non recovery of suspected material from the petitioner and opinion of an expert that the answers in the answer

¶46

W.P(C) No.2910/16

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

script could have been sourced from memory rather than copying.

¶49

First of all, preliminary enquiry was conducted earlier by Sri.A.C.Babu, Joint Registrar, as per orders of Vice Chancellor immediately after receiving a report from the Chief Superintendent. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the Syndicate Standing Committee on Students Disciplinary Welfare and Grievance. It is submitted that the Committee had conducted an enquiry as per the usual procedure and on finding that the petitioner was involved in malpractice, show cause notice had been issued. Petitioner sought for copy of the enquiry report which was furnished to the petitioner and thereafter the matter was placed before the Syndicate. The respondent also denied the allegation that there was bias against the petitioner in any respect. Reference is also made to Chapter 6, Clause 3(xxi) and (xxii) of M.G.University Statutes, 1997 and it is submitted that the report was considered by the Syndicate and a final decision was taken in the matter.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

¶51

As far as Ext.P1 is concerned, it is not an enquiry

¶52

W.P(C) No.2910/16

¶53

-:4:-

¶54

conducted by the University. It is an enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner which has no bearing as far as the enquiry to be conducted by the University is concerned. In a case involving malpractice during the conduct of examination, it is for the University to conduct appropriate enquiry into the matter. Perusal of Ext.P8 would show that a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Syndicate Standing Committee on Students Discipline Welfare and Grievances. The committee consists of several members. They have taken the statement of various persons involved in the matter. One contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statements were taken behind his back and the copies of the statements were not given to the petitioner. I do not think that there is any necessity to provide such statements to the petitioner nor there is any necessity to take statements in the presence of the delinquent. This is not a service matter and when an enquiry is conducted by the University through competent officers, they take statement from various persons to find out the actual issues involved in the matter. In the report, they have clearly stated the contents of the statements that were taken from various persons. Therefore, I do not think that not taking statements in the presence of the

¶55

W.P(C) No.2910/16

¶56

-:5:-

¶57

petitioner and not providing copy of such statements have caused any prejudice to the petitioner.

¶58

Yet another contention urged is that while issuing Ext.P10, the explanation offered by the petitioner has not been considered. Perusal of Ext.P10 would show that the report of the Enquiry Committee was discussed in the meeting of the Syndicate on 18/12/2015. This is a procedure adopted by the University as per the statute and once the Syndicate has considered the matter, I do not think that the Syndicate is required to pass an elaborate order on the alleged malpractice based on the explanation offered. Syndicate having been satisfied with the allegation of malpractice has issued Ext.P10 order. A detailed decision in the matter is not warranted under the circumstances.

¶59

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that there is any necessity to interfere with Ext.P10 order. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶61

Rp24/11/2016

¶62

//True Copy//

¶63

P.S to Judge

Jose T.J v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose T.J v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Sadik Nisar Vs Federal Bank Limited

Kerala Co-Operative Employees Union (Citu) Vs State of Kerala

N.Jagadisan Nair Vs the District Collector

The Principal, Ezhuthachan College of Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs Kerala University of Health & Allied Sciences

M/S Glass Palace Vs Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

Anil Thomas Vs Mahatma Gandhi University