Karan S/O Arun Handa vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3388 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Karan S/O Arun Handa vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 20 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                                        wp6077.13.odt

                                                      1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.6077/2013

     PETITIONER :               Karan s/o Arun Handa
                                Aged 20 years, Occu. Student, 
                                R/o 24/4, V.H.B. Colony, Bhagwan Naga
                                Post Office, Nagpur - 440027.

                                                   ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur 
                           University, Nagpur through its Registrar, 
                           Civil Lines, Nagpur. 

                                2.  The Disciplinary Action Committee, 
                                     Through its Chairman, Rashtrasant Tukdoji
                                     Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, 
                                     Civil Lines, Nagpur. 

                                 3.  The Board of Examinations, 
                                      Through its Chairman, Rashtrasant Tukdoji 
                                      Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, 
                                      Civil Lines, Nagpur. 
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner 
                       Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondents 
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 20.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the notification of the respondent - Nagpur University, dated 2.11.2013 cancelling the third semester examination of the petitioner in the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering Course) that was conducted during winter 2011 on the ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:05 ::: wp6077.13.odt 2 ground that he was a beneficiary of the misconduct committed by his mother Mrs. Sandhya Chunodkar in revaluation and re-totalling of the marks in the subjects in which the petitioner had initially failed.

Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notification, dated 2.11.2013 was passed by the respondent - University without granting any opportunity, whatsoever to the petitioner. It is submitted that before cancelling the examination of the petitioner, it was necessary for the respondent - University to at least serve a show-cause-notice on the petitioner. It is submitted that though the petitioner was served with a notice of the enquiry proceedings that were initiated against his mother and was asked to participate in the same, after the enquiry report was prepared and the mother of the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct, the petitioner was not served with a notice asking him to show cause as to why his examination should not be cancelled. It is submitted that after the enquiry report was received, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to defend the proposed action of cancellation of his examination.

Shri Puranik, the learned Counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner was duly served with a notice of the enquiry and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. It is submitted that it was proved in the enquiry that misconduct was committed by the mother ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:05 ::: wp6077.13.odt 3 of the petitioner which had resulted in increasing the marks in the four papers in which the petitioner had initially failed, to a great extent. It is, however, fairly admitted that before cancelling the third semester examination of the petitioner, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity.

Since the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, the impugned order cancelling the third semester examination of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Before taking the penal action of cancelling the third semester examination of the petitioner, it was necessary for the University to have served a notice on the petitioner asking the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action. Since this was not done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent - University may take appropriate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                    JUDGE                                                                JUDGE

     Wadkar


::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:05 :::