Aarti Sharma vs Punjab University and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—Ms. Aarti Sharma has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7-5-1999 passed by Controller of Examination, Punjab University Chandigarh vide which she was debarred from appearing in any of the University Examination for a period of four years i.e. 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 under regulation 14 (ii) of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1995. This order came to be passed pursuant to the report Annexure R-IV submitted by Unfair Means Committee constituted by the University. A perusal of the report would demonstrate that the case against the petitioner originated on the basis of the report of the examiner who re-valuated the answer book of the petitioner. He mentioned that while re-valuating the paper of the petitioner, he found that questions Nos. III, IV and V have not been evaluated at all earlier because errors/mistakes have not been marked. A strong suspicion was expressed by the revaluer that the possibility of the answer book having been written after the first evaluation cannot be ruled out. On the basis of the report of the revaluer referred to above, the original examiner was sent the answer book. He mentioned that it was indicated by him in the column at the front cover of the answer-sheet that the answers in questions have not been attempted and he had put N/A (not attempted) before questions Nos. III, IV and V. He further stated that the matter was serious and it should be thoroughly investigated.

The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and called in the University office. She stated that questions Nos. III, IV and V were attempted by her during the examination held in April, 1998 and not thereafter. She categorically denied that she answered these questions after the answer book was evaluated by the original examiner and put the entire blame on the first evaluator for having not checked her answer book properly.

The Unfair Means Committee after going through both the reports of the Examiners came to a definite conclusion that the petitioner was guilty under Regulation 14 (ii) (for taking out the answer book) of the Punjab University Calendar Volume II, 1995 and disqualified her from appearing in any examination of the University including the examination in question for a period of four years. It was further observed that a thorough enquiry be conducted to identify and punish the culprits, who helped the candidate to answer the questions under reference after the examination and first evaluation.

Mrs. Ritu Punj, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, she could not lead evidence to show that she had access to the answer book and attempted questions. Nos. III, IV and V later on. This exercise of leading evidence in positive had to be done by the University. The same having not been done, there was no material before the Unfair Means Committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner attempted questions Nos. III, IV and V later on.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record this Court is of the firm view that the report of the Unfair Means Committee is unassailable. Though the University has not examined any witness to show that the petitioner managed to get answer book and attempted the questions later on, yet the circumstances, available before the Unfair Means Committee would leave no one in any doubt that the petitioner managed to smuggle the answer book and then attempted questions Nos. III, IV and V. So far as re-valuation is concerned, the examiner mentioned in his report that there was no marking of questions Nos. III, IV and V as there was no mistake pointed out which is normally done while checking the paper. At that stage, it is no doubt true the matter was in realm of conjectures. The report of the first valuer was thus called and it became clear from the same that questions Nos. III, IV and V were attempted later in point of time. The first examiner in his report clearly stated that the question might have been attempted after his evaluation. Even that might have not clinched the issue if perhaps on the first page of the answer sheet of the petitioner, against questions Nos. III, IV and V N/A might have not been mentioned. The very fact that on the first page of the answer sheet, the first examiner has mentioned N/A against questions Nos. III, IV and V would demonstrate that these were not attempted earlier. This Court is of the firm view that the fact in issue need not always be proved by direct evidence, it is well known that circumstances sometime point towards the guilt of a person in such a way that it is not possible to take any other view. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is clearly of the view that charge against the petitioner that she had attempted questions Nos. III, IV and V later on, is fully established. I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

Sd/- V. K. BALI

1-11-1999 JUDGE 6. At this stage, Mrs. Ritu Punj pleads that punishment in this case is deterrent in as much as the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of four years. This Court is of the view that if the rules permitted more punishment even the same could have been given in this case. The charge against the petitioner did call for deterrent punishment.