Indian Institute Of Management ... vs Daivanti Thakare
2022 Latest Caselaw 1734 Kant

                                          WA No. 91 of 2022

                          -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

       WRIT APPEAL NO.91 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT BANGALORE
      REPRESENTED BY THE DEAN (PROGRAMMES)
      BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
      OPPOSITE TO APOLLO HOSPITALS,
      SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR,
      BILEKAHALLI,
      BENGALURU
      KARNATAKA - 560 076.

2.    THE CHAIR, PGP & PGP-BA
      BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
      OPPOSITE TO APOLLO HOSPITALS,
      SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR,
      BILEKAHALLI,
      BENGALURU
      KARNATAKA - 560 076.

3.    THE DEAN (PROGRAMMES)
      BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
      OPPOSITE TO APOLLO HOSPITALS,
      SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR,
      BILEKAHALLI,
      BENGALURU
      KARNATAKA - 560 076.


                                         ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR
 SMT. ANUPAMA G. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
                                        WA No. 91 of 2022

                           -2-
AND:

1.     DAIVANTI THAKARE
       D/O ANIL THAKARE,
       R/A PLOT NO.142,
       JAYHIND SOCIETY,
       NEAR MAHAJAN FLOUR MILL,
       SHYAM NAGAR,
       MANISH NAGAR,
       NAGPUR,
       MAHARASHTRA.

2.     KARAN GARG
       S/O MAHENDRA KUMAR GARG
       R/A E605, RANJEETNAGAR
       BHARTPUR
       RAJASTHAN.

3.     MADDUKURI SUSMITHA
       D/O MADDUKURI PARDHA SARADHI
       R/A 4-12-10/1,
       SUBBARAO PETA
       DAMODAVARAPU VARI STREET,
       TEDEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI
       ANDHRA PRADESH.

4.     ABHINAV PAIGWAR
       S/O VIRENDRA PAIGWAR
       R/A 765, WEST GHAMARPUR
       SHEETALAMI WARD
       BEHIND MILIYA BAI KI
       DHARAMSHALA
       JABALPUR CITY
       JABALPUR
       MADHYA PRADESH.

5.     ADITYA KALOGE
       S/O DEEPAK KALOGA,
       R/AT FLAT A2,
       JAI RENUKA SOCIETY,
       MAKHMALABAD NAKA,
       HEMKUNJ PANCHWATI, NASHIK,
       MAHARASTHRA.

6.     MITALEE KULKARNI
       D/O MILIND KULKARNI,
       R/AT 103, ATHARVA PARK-A,
       AMBAJOAI ROAD,
       BELAMBE NAGAR,
                                             WA No. 91 of 2022

                           -3-
       LATUR,
       MAHARASHTRA.

7.     MANJIRI BHOJANA
       D/O RAVIKIRAN BHAJANE
       R/A 6298, NACHANGAON ROAD
       MEERA COLONY
       PULGAON
       WARDHA
       MAHARASHTRA.

8.     RISHABH KATROLIYA
       S/O SUNIL KATROLIYA
       R/A NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE,
       WARD NO.10, KARERA SHIVPURI
       MADHYA PRADESH.

9.     SRISHTI PATIL
       D/O SANJAY PATIL
       R/A PLOT 1041, OLD JANORI ROAD
       DHONDGE MALA ADGAON,
       NASHIK,
       MAHARASHTRA.

10 .   UNON OF INDIA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
       MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
       SHASTRI BHAVAN,
       DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
       NEW DELHI - 110 001.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIVEK N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1, 7 AND 9;
SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R10)
                            ---
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 20TH DECEMBER
2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.19045/2021 (EDN-RES) (IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) AND
ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  WA No. 91 of 2022

                           -4-

                       JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the appellants informs that

required court fee has been paid. The other office

objections are overruled.

2. Heard Mr.Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for the

appellants.

3. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the

impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2021

passed in Writ Petition No.19045/2021, whereby the

writ petition preferred by the respondents-students

has been allowed and the order under challenge has

been set aside. The writ Court has remitted the

matter back to the appellant-Indian Institute of

Management with a direction to reconsider the

quantum of punishment in terms of clause 4.2.1(c) of

the Programme Manual 2021-2022 [PGP & PGP BA]

and pass appropriate order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

learned Single Judge has grossly erred in relying on WA No. 91 of 2022

certain provisions of the Programme Manual 2021-

2022 to come to the conclusion that a lenient view is

required to be taken for the first-time offenders and

the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of

law. It is submitted that the respondents were the

students enrolled in PGP & PGP BA course and they

were required to appear in online mid-term

examination held on 05.08.2021. These respondents-

students knowing fully well that they cannot use the

internet in the examination had formed a 'WhatsApp'

group in order to involve themselves in assisting each

other in answering the questions and as such, had

adopted unfair means to give their examination.

5. It is submitted that under the manual dealing with

the provisions relating to academic penalty for

copying in examinations and quizzes clearly provides

that the penalty could be more severe, including

possible expulsion. The submission is that it is in the

discretion of the Department to take a lenient view or

to impose severe penalty such as expulsion in case

the students have been found to be involved in

copying in the examination and quizzes.

WA No. 91 of 2022

6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has

failed to take into consideration this aspect of the

matter and has only relied on the provisions as

provided under para 4.2.1(c)(1) and has come to the

conclusion that for the first-time offenders, zero

marks shall be awarded in the examination/test,

irrespective of however minor the infringement may

be.

7. It is also submitted that it has been the consistent

view of the Apex Court that in the matters relating to

education and academic standards, the Court shall

not impose its view and shall not reduce the quantum

of punishment awarded to the offenders.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the appellants and gone through the

records.

9. The respondents-students were admittedly students

of Post Graduate Courses for the year 2021-2023.

The first-term examination (mid-term examination)

was scheduled to be held on 05.08.2021. It is alleged WA No. 91 of 2022

that in the said examination, these respondents-

students had adopted unfair means by forming a

group on 'WhatsApp' and thereby involved

themselves in the use of unfair means in giving their

examination. It is the case of the appellants that

these respondents-students when issued show cause

notice etc., had tried to remove the evidence from

the social media group. They were in fact involved in

planning and cheating during the mid-term

examination. These respondents-students had initially

denied the allegations, however, some of them when

confronted had subsequently accepted their guilt.

10. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration

the fact that the PGP Committee, without holding an

enquiry on the complaint, only on the basis of the

screenshots came to the conclusion that ten students

including the respondents-students are involved in

the use of unfair means in all three subjects and

awarded maximum punishment of expulsion from the

institute and they were directed to withdraw from the

programme vide order dated 25.08.2021. The

respondents-students feeling aggrieved had preferred WA No. 91 of 2022

an appeal. However, the same was rejected and as

such, had filed the Writ Petition.

11. The learned Single Judge has also taken into

consideration the admitted fact that the similarly

placed students against whom identical allegations

are made were awarded zero marks without expulsion

though they stand on the same footing and were

equally involved in the alleged cheating. The

appellants has treated the six students differently.

The respondents-students had produced copy of the

order passed with respect to students namely Suchet

Borole and Komal Mehera. In that case, zero marks in

all three examinations were awarded to them and

they were barred from any position, awards and

distinction.

12. It was the case of the respondents-students that they

are the first-time offenders and they have not

involved themselves earlier in any such illegal means

in the examinations. The learned Single Judge has

taken the view that the appellant-Indian Institute of

Management has adopted different yardstick for the WA No. 91 of 2022

similarly situated students and for some students

they have taken lenient view and awarded zero marks

whereas, in the case of respondents-students,

stringent view of expulsion has been taken, which

amounts to discrimination. The learned Single Judge

has held that the action taken against the

respondents-students is disproportionate to the

gravity of the misconduct committed by the

respondents-students.

13. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents-

students are first-time offenders. There is also no

dispute to the fact that para 4.2.1(c)(1) of the

program manual is fully applicable to the case of the

respondents-students. The only contention of learned

counsel for the appellants before this Court is that it

is the discretion of the management to award

stringent punishment or not. His submission is that in

the given facts and circumstances, the management

has taken a view that stringent punishment of

expulsion shall be awarded which does not call for

any interference by the Court.

WA No. 91 of 2022

- 10 -

14. We are of the considered view that the manual clearly

provides that for the first-time offenders, zero marks

shall be awarded in all examination/test/quiz. For the

repeat offenders, grade 'U' (unsatisfactory) and zero

grade point will be awarded to a student in the course

if the student has already been penalised for the lack

of integrity in any course in the program. There is

also a provision that students concerned even with a

single instance of offence, will have to step down

from all positions of responsibility (elected or

selected). The student concerned will also not be

eligible to receive any award from the institute such

as the Director's Merit List, Director's Honour List of

Gold Medal for academic excellence or all-round

performance and the penalty could be more severe,

including possible expulsion.

15. In the present case, the management has taken the

view that the penalty of expulsion shall be awarded to

these students. No reasons have been assigned as to

why such severe view is being taken by the

management in respect of the petitioners, more

particularly when with respect to certain other WA No. 91 of 2022

- 11 -

students who are similarly situated, the management

has taken a lenient view treating them to be first-

time offenders and has awarded zero marks as also

deprived them of receiving any award or medal etc.,

16. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able

to satisfy the Court as to why the same view cannot

be taken with respect to the respondents-students

and why a lenient view on the basis of clause

4.2.1(c)(1) can be taken in the case of the

respondents-students.

17. Once a provision has been provided and a view on the

basis of the said provisions has been taken by the

Court, it cannot be faulted and it cannot be said that

the view taken by the Court is wrong and no

interference could be granted. The provisions under

the manual in exceptional circumstances do provide

for severe penalty including possible expulsion but it

does not mean that every time the stringent

punishment of expulsion should be resorted to and

lenient view cannot be taken, more so when the

stringent punishment is an exception to the WA No. 91 of 2022

- 12 -

punishment provided for first-time offenders being

awardal of "zero marks".

18. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find

any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the

learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it

to be a necessary case for interference. The writ

appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear that

considering that the respondents are the students

studying in the Apex Management Institute and their

career is at stake, we feel it appropriate to observe

that in case the respondents-students involve

themselves again in any such activities such as

involving themselves in cheating in the examination

and adopting unfair means, then the appellants could

be free to take appropriate action against them in

accordance with the manual.

19. The view taken by the writ Court in the case of the

respondent-students shall not be treated to be a

precedent for future cases of similar nature.

WA No. 91 of 2022

- 13 -

20. The pending interlocutory application does not survive

for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KPS