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
wp6077.13.odt
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
wp6077.13.odt
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
