Pooja D/O Shankarlal Manshani vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1087 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.D. Sinha, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. M. Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A. P. Shinde, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that an enquiry was initiated by the University against the petitioner for alleged malpractice in the examination particularly in respect of answer book of History-II of LL.B.-II semester (five years course). The respondent-University issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 14-7-2005, whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the competent authority of the University at Nagpur on 18-7-2005. It is submitted that the petitioner resides at Wardha and she received the show cause notice on 19-7-2005, and therefore, could not remain present on 18-7-2005 before the Enquiry Officer of the respondent-University. However, the respondent-University passed the order and awarded the following punishment:

One + Two Punishment - means annulling the performance of the Examinee in full for Summer-2005 examination and also debarring her from appearing in and up to Summer-2006 Examination."

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that this order is passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving her an opportunity of hearing, and therefore, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University contended that for want of instructions, she is not in a position either to dispute or support the findings of the competent authority of the respondent.

5. We have given anxious consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that there is acknowledgment with the petitioner which shows that the show cause notice dated 14-7-2005 was received by her on 19-7-2005 at Wardha, and therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner could not remain present before the Enquiry Officer of respondent-University on 18-7-2005. It is evident that the impugned order dated 2-8-2005 imposing the punishment referred to hereinabove is undoubtedly, without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and therefore, in our view the same is violative of the principles of natural justice which cannot be sustained in law.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dated 2-8-2005 passed by the respondent-University is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-University is directed to reconsider the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order according to law and procedure applicable in this regard as well as on the merits of the matter.

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