Piyush Anand vs Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT) & Ors.

(Per Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The main grievance of the petitioner is regarding the order dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 -The Dean, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur by which, petitioner was expelled, in the course and not allowed for admission and registration for next four semesters. The petitioner is the original resident of Hajipur, Bihar and pursuing his studies in the Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering at VNIT Nagpur in second year. As per contention of the petitioner, he has maintained a consistent academic record throughout his course of study. He is a meritorious student and participated in various academic and institutional responsibilities and never been previously subjected to any disciplinary action or adverse remark by any Institute. He comes from a modest middle-class family and desiring to complete his higher education. He appeared for third semester of second year examination which was commenced from 26.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 for a subject Solid Mechanics. During the examination, attendance sheet was circulated among the students for attendance and answer sheet. After completion of the examination period, invigilator collected the answer sheets from the students and the same were in custody of invigilator. On 12.12.2025 he received a phone call from Head of Department of Civil Engineering i.e. respondent No.6 alleging that when the concerned professor distributing the answer sheets to the students, more than 10 to 15 students assembled around his table. The petitioner who was issued answer sheet bearing number 22615 against which the petitioner has signed on the record maintained during the examination, the petitioner removed the said answer sheet issued to him from the bunch of answer books and ensured that it is not available to anybody and simultaneously substituted answer sheet bearing number 22748. It was further alleged that said answer sheet was completely tampered, having no signature of valuer and invigilator and even the marks of the said answer sheet as also the inner page of the answer sheet are completely filled in by the petitioner himself. The answer sheet number is written on page No.1 by all the students including the petitioner and the answer sheet issued to the petitioner bearing 22615 is not available and could not be traced. Therefore, the complaint was made against the present petitioner. The respondent No. 8 who is a valuer categorically stated that he has not given 50 out of 50 marks to any student since none of the students deserved and when he noticed that petitioner has been awarded with 50 marks, he suspected and reported the matter to the respondent No.7.

Taking cognizance of the grievance made by the respondent No.8, a Fact Finding Committee was constituted. One Professor A.B. Andhare, Head, Mechanical Engineering Department, was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry Committee who initially recorded the statement of the respondent No.8 on 22.12.2025. The petitioner has submitted a statement dated 12.12.2025 accepting the guilt and requesting the Head of Department to punish him as per the rules. Subsequently, the said admission was retracted by the petitioner in his statement dated 16.12.2025. Thus the petitioner alleged to be tampered answer sheets and therefore, the disciplinary action was taken against him and he was punished by expelling him for next four semesters. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that petitioner is a meritorious student. He was not involved in the activities alleged. The statement was obtained from him under the coercion. He gave a statement under pressure as he was threatened for severe action. The Committee while conducting an inquiry has not given an opportunity and violated the principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed is also excessive and exorbitant one. He submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable as same has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents/authorities have failed to afford the petitioner a fair meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. For all above these reasons the petition of the present petitioner deserves to be allowed.

Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the said contention and vehemently submitted that the petitioner has committed a misconduct during the examination as he has exchanged the answer sheet. The answer sheet was given to him bearing No.22615 which is not available and could not be traced. The statement of respondent No.8 specifically shows that while valuing the answer sheet he has not awarded 50/50 marks to any students. He demonstrated from another answer sheet of another students regarding the procedure of allotting the marks and also shown the marks which are written by the petitioner. He submitted that the invigilator has denied the signature which is appearing on answer sheet No.22748. He submitted that petitioner himself has admitted before the Committee that he has committed a mistake and subsequently after thought after four days he has retracted the said statement. He invited our attention towards the statement made by the petitioner on 12.12.2025 wherein he has specifically stated that he accepts that he has been found guilty and replaced the answer sheet and requested to take the suitable action and subsequently after four days on 16.12.2025 he retracted the said statement. He submitted that such type of the conduct on the part of the student at the initial stage of his career is unacceptable and showing leniency to such type of the students would cause grave prejudice to the other students.

Admittedly, maintaining the academic discipline is most important. Persons using unfair means to steal marks over students who work hard to prove their worth to be dealt with stern hands. The students who resort to unfair means and get away with it cannot build this nation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan reported in (2009) 1 SCC 59 has stressed on the need to maintain purity and strict discipline in the conduct of examinations, deeming it to be necessary for the overall progress of the nation. It is further observed that it is a pandamic which can ruining society and the educational system of any country. If the same is left unchecked or if leniency is shown, the same can have a deleterious effect. For any country’s progress, the integrity of the educational system has to be infallible. Whether it is paper setters who are not maintaining utmost confidentiality, students who are cheating, invigilators who are not vigilant and examiners who are not doing their job with utmost sincerity to be treated with stern hand.

The petitioner herein was found using unfair means in a 3^rd semester examination in a subject of Solid Mechanics and therefore, he was expelled in the course and not allowed for admission/registration for next 4^th semesters. Aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner approached to this Court.

A perusal of the material on record shows that during 3^rd semester examination, the petitioner has exchanged the answer sheet and allotted the marks by self valuing the said examination. The original record which was placed before us shows that valuer has made a complaint regarding the interpolation and exchange of the answer sheet by the petitioner. The Internal Committee was constituted who has investigated the matter. Respondent No.8 i.e Dr. Sharad Singh, Course Coordinator, Mechanics of Solid made a complaint on 12.12.2025 stating that the student Piyush Anand i.e present petitioner enrolled at BT24CIVO75 and student ID 32288 appeared for exam in Room No.C-1/4, in the Civil Engineering Department. During the exam, the student seems to have stolen a blank answer sheet and taken it outside the exam hall. At the end of the exam, the student had submitted only the first answer sheet, and taken away the stolen answer sheet. While showing the evaluated answer sheets to students, the student Piyush Anand seems to have brought the stolen answer sheet with all questions complete and correctly written, which the student had himself evaluated, marked and given himself full marks. He has also forged the signature of the invigilator and the evaluator. Taking advantage of the students’ crowd gathered to see copies, the student Piyush Anand exchanged the originally submitted answer sheet with the stolen answer sheet. Upon entering the marks for final grades, he noticed that petitioner had received full marks (50 out of 50) which he had not given to any student in that section. He also observed that hand writing of the evaluator on the answer sheet is not the same as his. He crossed checked the serial number of the stolen answer sheet which was entered in the attendance sheet which did not match. The serial number entered in attendance sheet against the name of petitioner was 22615, whereas the available answer sheet which was produced by the petitioner was 22748. Thus, the petitioner was involved in theft of additional answer sheet of serial no.22748. He written the exam outside exam hall on the stolen answer sheet. He self evaluated the answer booklet and forged the signature of invigilator and evaluator. Thus, he was indulged in the heinous activity of theft and forgery.

On the same day, the petitioner gave a statement to the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering stating that he found guilty in the case of cheating in the exam of Mechanics of Solid and therefore, he gives a statement that he accepts that he has been found guilty and replaced the answer sheets. He also requested the authorities to take suitable action on him. He further stated that he was not in a state and not capable of dealing with FIR and police cases and therefore, he be punished accordingly, with Institute Rules. On 16.12.2025 he retracted the said statement stating that he has given the examination with his capabilities and by mistaken may have been written wrong booklet number on the attendance sheet. He admitted writing wrong booklet number and stated that he has good academic record and obtained good marks in other subjects too and therefore, leniency be shown to him.

The Chairman of Fact Finding Committee, VNIT submitted its report reiterating the facts and found that the petitioner has indulged in the activity of misconduct. The report shows that the petitioner was summoned and enquired about the incident. After repeated questioning and warning he denied of any misconduct on his part. His father was also informed about the misconduct. On the same day evening, he submitted a letter accepting that he had replaced the answer sheet and on 16.12.2025 he retracted the said statement and claimed that by mistake he had written a wrong answer sheet number in the attendance sheet. The Committee observed that the student has tried to mislead the Committee by fraudulently changing his statements. However, the documentary and other circumstantial evidence show that he is guilty for misconduct.

From the record it reveals that original answer sheet given to him was 22615. However, he has submitted self evaluated answer sheet bearing No.22748. The original answer sheet given to him bearing No.22615 is missing. Valuer has denied his signature by communicating to the Chairman of Fact Finding Committee stating that he was invigilator on End-semester Exam 2025 of AML-2025 for a subject Mechanics of Solids on 02.12.2025. He has signed all answer sheets on main answer sheet but the sign on 22748 is not his signature which is submitted by the petitioner Piyush Anand. We have also verified the said answer sheet. The original record placed before us shows that answer sheets submitted by present petitioner bearing number 22748 wherein marks mentioned as 50 out of 50. The signature on the said answer sheet is verified from the other answer sheet and it reveals that there is a difference in the signature. Not only that, the procedure of giving the marks also differs as marks on the other answer sheet was given differently. Thus, there is substance in the allegation. More over, the statement of evaluator and invigilator both supports the allegation. The petitioner has also initially admitted the record maintained by invigilator shows that the answer sheet given to the present petitioner was 22615. The list maintained by the invigilator dated 02.12.2025 also shows that the petitioner was allotted the answer sheet No.22615, whereas the answer sheet submitted by the petitioner bears number 22748. No appropriate explanation is given by the petitioner. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not given with an opportunity and there is a violation of natural justice is concerned, is not acceptable as notice was already given to him. He was inquired by the Grievance Committee. The petitioner’s father was also present who was also heard by the Committee and thereafter the punishment was imposed.

Undisputedly, the respondents/Management has to be very strict in maintaining academic standard and academic discipline for the progress of the country. There is no point in showing sympathy to students using unfair means. The petitioner has admitted that he has exchanged the answer sheet. Here the petitioner has not only exchanged answer sheet but he wrote answer sheet out side the examination hall and said answer sheet was evaluated by himself and forged signature of the invigilator which is apparent. The respondent No.2 has awarded punishment by expelling him in the course and restrained him for registering next four semesters.

Now question is whether the punishment is excessive and what should be appropriate punishment in the facts and circumstances of a particular case is entirely discretion of the Educational Institution. The scope of interference is very limited, unless this Court finds punishment to be excessive or disproportionate. The question however, should the petitioner suffers such punishment without even considering the past academic record which has been very good. No doubt the petitioner ought to have been vigilant, careful and cautious. It is well setted that merely because the petitioner shows remorse or seek forgiveness is no ground for being sympathetic to students using unfair means if the punishment imposed is proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The reason for imposing punishment as above is that the petitioner had not only exchanged the answer sheet by using unfair means but also forged the signature and evaluated the said answer sheet at his own which amounts to serious misconduct. The said reasoning does not require any interference. The persons using unfairness to steal marks over students who worked hard to prove their worth has to be dealt with a stern hand. Students who resort to unfair means and get away with it are not useful for building of this nation. They cannot be dealt with leniently and they should be made to learn a lesson not to adopt unfair means in their life. The facts in the case demonstrate that the petitioner has been able to get hold of question paper and write an answer but he take assistance of unfair means.

In the case of Karthik Deepak Sharma vs. Director General, Nirma University reported in MANU/GJ/0272/2023 wherein by referring the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh supra it is observed that “sympathy for students using unfair means is wholly out of place. While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court, cautioned that there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examination.”.

In the case of Controller of Examinations and others vs. G.S. Sunder and another, reported in 1993 (1) Scale 604. The Apex Court held in paragraph No.10 as under:-

The Supreme Court while considering the scope of interference in the writ petition, it is held that “before deciding whether the writ applicant is entitled to any relief, I deem it necessary to reiterate the well established principles that the Courts should give due respect to the opinion expressed by the academicians and the decisions of the academic bodies on matters relating to admissions, examinations and discipline in the educational institutions. However, this does not mean that the Courts should worship such opinions and decisions blind folded and refuse to discharge its constitutional obligations to protect the fundamental, constitutional and legal rights of the citizens. In the scheme of our Constitution the argument that the decisions of academic bodies and educational institutions should remain immune from the power of judicial review vested in the Courts cannot be accepted.”

The Apex Court further by referring the decision in the case in Kehar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 204, S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 observed that the Apex Court has recognised the Court's power of judicial review even in these matters though the grounds on which the orders passed in such matters can be subjected to judicial scrutiny are extremely limited and it is always desirable not to interfere with the same unless it becomes imperative. It cannot also be ignored that the decisions of educational institutions and academic bodies, which are required to be taken in accordance with the relevant statutes, at times affect the students, teachers and employees and they are always subject to constitutional limitations contained in Articles 14, 15, 16 and 20 etc. Therefore, if the Court finds that such decisions are violative of the statutory or constitutional provisions, then it is the constitutional duty of the Court to intervene and protect the rights of citizens.”

The further observation in paragraph No. 7.3 of the Apex Court reproduced as under:-

Now the question whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not? Admittedly, it is to be answered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principles emerge from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. The Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not the whims and desires of the persons to whom the governance is entrusted. Therefore, question is whether it is open to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to accept the explanation offered by the writ petitioner or to interfere with the decision taken by the Committee.

The Gujarat High Court in the decision of Aditya Dayanand Tare vs. Union of India reported in MANU/GJ/0005/2019 observing that “Under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the decision or orders of the subordinate tribunals and statutory authorities entrusted with the quasi-judicial functions, if they act without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice or if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, yet it is limited as it exercises supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate tribunals or courts and it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction.” Now it is well settled that Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by Tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities and it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of quasi-judicial authorities if the decision is arrived at bona fide after complying with the principles of natural justice. The High Court cannot substitute its own opinion and it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings on appraisal of evidence.

In view of the above settled legal principles and by applying the same to the facts of the present case, the Fact Finding Committee examined the facts and circumstantial evidence and come to the conclusion that the answer sheet was exchanged by the petitioner by unfair means. The Fact Finding Committee was constituted. The decision was taken by them after giving deem opportunity to the present petitioner. The decision should not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the decision is malafide, arbitrary or capricious. Any decision of an authority quasi judicial or administrative is vitiated on the ground of malafideness. Similarly decision of the quasi judicial authorities would be vitiated if it is based on no evidence or it is arbitrary and the conclusion which the authority has arrived at could not be reached by any reasonable person or body of persons.

While considering the question of record and the Committee’s report which show that bonafide view was taken on the basis of the statements and documentary evidence on record and therefore, this is not a fit case wherein the interference is called for. As observed earlier, the various precedents have settled the legal position and set certain limitations and restrictions on this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 in the dealing with the decisions of academic bodies. The Courts have consistently kept their hands off with the orders passed by high academic bodies unless there is gross violation of fair play based on bias or malafide is brought to the notice in the orders passed by them. Even formal violation of principles of natural justice requires to be taken into consideration if the allegations of such violation is made.

In the light of the above principles, we are of the considered opinion that after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the order was passed by respondent No.2. As already observed earlier that it is a consistent view of the Supreme Court and we reiterated it on the cost of repetition which is expressed by the Hon’ble Court in a poetic manner as under:-

In view of the observation and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-