AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the 4th Respondent dated 11.7.2006 and to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue the B.E. course for the academic years 2003-2007.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the Petitioner is a student of the 4th Respondent Engineering College, pursuing third year part-time B.E. course. On 26.4.2006 while the Petitioner was writing R-21 Mathematics-II semester examination, the Invigilator of the Examination Hall found an extraneous material (bit of paper) in the possession of Petitioner, for which the Petitioner was charged for copying in the examinations. The College Malpractice Enquiry Committee issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner on 3.5.2006 and conducted enquiry on the said charge. According to the Petitioner, based on the enquiry report, the 4th Respondent sent a letter stating that the results of semester papers appeared by the Petitioner in the said semester are completely annulled and the Petitioner was debarred from attending classes for one year. In the said order, Petitioner was directed to file appeal, if he is aggrieved, before the Appeal and Grievance Committee. Petitioner filed appeal before the said Committee and the same was also dismissed on 18.8.2006. Hence the Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer.
The Respondents 4 to 6 have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Petitioner, while writing supplementary examination R-21 Mathematics-II during April, 2006, was found guilty on committing malpractice. Petitioner was caught red-handed by the Invigilator and as per the usual practice, Petitioner was directed to give a statement as to what exactly happened and the Petitioner admitted the guilt in the said statement. A formal notice dated 3.5.2006 was issued to the Petitioner, for which he submitted an explanation on 7.5.2006 and requested for lenient punishment. An enquiry was conducted and at that time Petitioner admitted his guilt and based on the enquiry findings, the Principal of the College passed an order on 11.7.2006 on behalf of the Standing Committee, annulling all the examinations written by the Petitioner during April, 2006 and also expelling him from the College for one year. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Appeal and Grievance Committee was also rejected. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that the 4th Respondent college is an Autonomous Institution and it is having its own internal mechanism to deal with the students and therefore the malpractice committed by the Petitioner was firmly dealt with. According to the 4th Respondent it is a single punishment to the malpractice committed and it is not excessive. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Anna University examination regulation has no application to the 4th Respondent College since it is an autonomous Engineering college and therefore the impugned order is in order.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner is not denying the alleged incident and he is questioning only the gravity of the punishment. Insofar as debarring the Petitioner from attending the college for one year, the learned Counsel argued that the Petitioner being an Engineering College student, for any violation of the code of conduct in the examination, the concerned examination in that semester alone can be annulled as per the Anna University regulations and the 4th Respondent is not justified in awarding higher punishment than the one prescribed by the Anna University.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6 argued that the Petitioner having admitted the guilt, is not entitled to question the wisdom of the management in the matter of imposing punishment, particularly when the 4th Respondent College is an autonomous Engineering College. The learned Counsel relied upon the circular of the 4th Respondent College dated 1.8.2000 wherein it is stated that not only the annulment of the examinations written by the Petitioner during the semester examinations, but also the students may be debarred from registering and appearing for all the examinations including the arrears for the subsequent two semesters and therefore the 4th Respondent has imposed the punishment of annulment of the examinations with debarment for one year which is well within the powers of the 4th Respondent.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the respective learned Counsels for the Respondents.
The Anna University Statutes for Autonomous Colleges approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20.8.2003 vide resolution No. 154.9.10, Clause 9.2 states as follows:
9.2 The standard of the Regulations framed or updated by an autonomous college shall be equal to or higher than that of the Regulations prescribed by the University (for affiliated colleges). Especially, the minimum attendance prescribed for permitting students to sit for the examinations, the passing requirements of courses (subjects) and the classification criteria should never be lower than those prescribed by the University. Also the weightage for internal assessment shall not exceed the prescribed quantum fixed by the University from time to time.
Insofar as malpractice committed by the students are concerned, it is stated as follows:
ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI -600 025 REGULATIONS (To be followed for Granting Autonomous status to the Affiliated Colleges)
....
MALPRACTICE In respect of malpractices committed by students in the examination, rules and regulations prescribed by the Syndicate of Anna University from time to time shall be adopted.
From a perusal of the above Anna University regulations, which are directed to be followed by the Autonomous Colleges, it is clear that in respect of malpractices committed by the students in the examinations, the rules and regulations prescribed by the Senate of Anna University from time to time shall be adopted. The nature of malpractice and punishment is also formulated by the Anna University in its Syndicate meeting held on 27.4.2004 in resolution No. 158.63. In item No. 6, it is stated as follows, "Possession of any incriminating materials inside the examination hall (whether used or not) for example written or printed materials, bits, writings on scale, calculates handkerchief, hall ticket, possession of organizer, etc, cancellation of all theory examinations (all papers current and arrears registered during the examination session like April/May or October/November
Debarment for a period of one year from attending the classes is not contemplated under the regulations. Thus, it is clear that the punishment imposed by the 4th Respondent insofar as debarring the Petitioner from attending classes for the period of one year is to be treated as unauthorized in view of the specific guidelines issued by the Anna University, to be followed even by the autonomous colleges, as stated supra.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent that the 4th Respondent College is an autonomous institution and is entitled to impose rigorous punishment for the excellence of education cannot be accepted in view of the fact that for a particular offence committed by a student, there cannot be two sets of punishment. Insofar as affiliated colleges of Anna University are concerned only the annulment of the examinations can be made. In the light of the said undisputed fact, I am of the view that for the same offence there cannot be different punishments merely because the Petitioner is undergoing B.E. Degree course in an autonomous college. Autonomy does not mean imposing of higher punishment than the one prescribed by the University for a specific misconduct. Hence the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent is not only in violation of the Anna University examination regulations, but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order passed in appeal is a non-speaking order. The point raised by the Petitioner in regard to punishment prescribed by the Anna University is not considered and answered.
The Anna university itself imposed punishment for similar malpractice insofar as one R. Mahesh Babu of M. Kumarasamy College of Engineering for having possessed bits and cancelled the theory examinations (all papers, current and arrears) during the sessions October/November, 2005 by order dated 23.3.2006. Hence there is no doubt with regard to the punishment to be imposed for the malpractice said to have been committed by the Petitioner as per the Anna University regulation is concerned.
(a) The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in JT 2001 (Suppl) 1 SC 44 (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raj Pal Singh) considered a similar issue with regard to the discretion of the authority in imposing different punishment for the same offence. In para 2 the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
�When the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory.
(b) Same is the view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sengara Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, in para 9 of the Judgment.
(c) In 1997 Writ L.R. 536 (M. Rajamanickam v. The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.) a Division Bench of this Court in para 26 took a similar view.
(d) In the decision reported in 2002 Writ L.R. 449 (T.R. Venkatachary v. The Special Officer, Corporation of Madurai and Anr.), a learned single Judge of this Court quashed the order of dismissal applying the above said principle. W.A. No. 3263 of 2002 filed against the said order was dismissed on 17.3.2004.
Even though the disciplinary authority in those cases are one and the same and the said authority imposed different punishments to the persons who involved in similar delinquencies, the underlying principle is not to treat differently for the same offence. In this case, though the 4th Respondent is an autonomous Engineering College, is dealing with the same delinquency as it has been committed by a student of M. Kuma-rasamy College of Engineering, who was imposed the punishment of annulment of examinations, without debarment by the Anna University. Hence for the same delinquency of two students, two different punishments cannot be imposed merely because one student has undergone the course in a different institution.
In the result, the impugned order insofar as debarring the Petitioner from attending classes for one year is set aside. I am informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondents 4 to 6 that pursuant to the stay granted by this Court, the Petitioner is undergoing classes and the said attendance of the Petitioner in the academic year 2006-2007 is to be treated as in order.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.