GNLU Case Final Judgement

C/SCA/20327/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20327 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of

the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of

law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JAYMIN RAJENDRA BRAHMBHATT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
G H VIRK, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 04/05/2016
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been preferred by a student pursuing legal
education in the Respondent No. 1 Gujarat National Law
University (GNLU). The Respondent No. 2 Shri Bimal Patel, is
Page 1 of 46
HC-NIC Page 1 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

the Director and Vice Chancellor of GNLU. The Respondent Nos. 3

and 4 were the coram of the Exam Inquiry Committee that
adjudicated the alleged malpractice of the Petitioner. The
Respondent No. 5 was the invigilating faculty during the
examination in question. The Respondent No. 6 is another faculty
member involved in the present matter. I have heard learned
counsel Mr. Gursharan H. Virk for the Petitioner and Ms.
Dharmishtha N. Raval for the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the present matter are that the writ Petitioner
student, presently in his third year of a five year integrated LL.B.
program, has challenged an e-mail/order dated 03.12.2015
addressed by GNLU on instructions and approval of the
Respondent No. 2 i.e Mr. Bimal N. Patel, who is the Director of
GNLU. The said impugned e-mail/order dated 03.12.2015 (at
Annexure-D, page 106 of the Memo of Writ Petition) reads as
under:
From: GNLU Examination <examination@gnlu.ac.in>

Date: 3 December 2015 at 5:07:15 PM IST
To: brahmbhattjaymin33@yahoo.com
Subject: Examination malpractice
Dear Jaymin (Registration No. 13A031)

You are hereby informed that the Examination Inquiry
Committee has given the following recommendation
(copied below) which has been approved by the
Director, with regard to the malpractice reported on 2nd Nov.
2015 during the End Semester Examination (Repeat) of the
subject Quantitative Techniques (semester III) :
Recommendation of the Examination inquiry Committee:

On the basis of exam regulation 44 (a) and 44(a) (iv),
the punitive action recommended is Cancellation of the
end-term examination of that particular subject of the
candidate that means the candidates end-semester
examination held on 2nd November 2015 in the subject of
Quantitative Techniques of semester III(Repeat) stands
Page 2 of 46

cancelled.
Following this, your exam of Quantitative Techniques

held on 2nd Nov. 2015 stands cancelled.
Examination and Evaluation Management Division

Gujarat National Law University
(Emphasis supplied.)
3. An interesting series of events and occurrences have culminated

into the issuance of the aforesaid impugned e-mail dated
03.12.2015 and resultant filing of the present writ petition by the
Petitioner-student.
4. The fact of the present petition is that on 02.11.2015, from 1.30

pm to 4.30 pm, the Petitioner took the examination for the subject
of Quantitative Techniques. The invigilating faculty during the
said examination was the Respondent No. 5 one Ms. Richa
Sharma. It is further the say of the Petitioner in paragraph nos. 4.5
to 4.11 of his writ petition that at around 4.25 pm, barely 5
minutes before the completion of the examination, the
Respondent No. 5 suddenly bolted from across the examination
hall and snatched the answer sheet of the Petitioner, alleging that
the Petitioner was hiding something . This Court will refrain
from going in greater detail into the facts of the case so as to
preserve and protect the modesty and reputation of all involved.
Thereafter the Respondent No. 5 sought to physically frisk the
Petitioner and persisted in the said demand. However, the
Petitioner objected to being physically frisked by the Respondent
No.5 who was a member of the opposite gender in the interest of
modesty. Hence, the Respondent No. 5 contacted the Respondent
No.6 one Mr. Avinash Bhagi, to frisk the Petitioner. Upon the
arrival of the Respondent No. 6 in the Examination Hall, the
Petitioner, requested the Respondent No. 6 to frisk him so that he
could be cleared of the allegations that had been so vocally made
against him by the Respondent No. 5. However, the Respondent
No. 6 did not frisk the Petitioner and instead escorted the
Petitioner to the Respondent No. 2 Director, Mr. Bimal Patel.
Page 3 of 46

5. Further, the case of the Petitioner is that upon leaving the

examination hall with the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Petitioner
took his bag placed outside the examination hall and took his
phone out of the bag to contact his father. At this juncture, the
Respondent No.6, in unparliamentarily language, threated the
Petitioner with dire consequences if the Petitioner attempted to
contact anyone. Thereafter, the Director Mr. Patel, called the
Petitioners parent to the university premises. The Petitioner, his
father, the Director himself, and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, all
assembled in the chamber of the Director, where, the Respondent
No.5 changed her allegation to the Petitioner having utilized his
cell phone to allegedly commit malpractice. It may be recalled that
the original allegation of the Respondent No. 5 was that the
Petitioner was hiding something. Therefore, the cell phone of
the Petitioner-student came to be seized by the Respondents. The
Petitioner did not raise any issue and submitted his cell phone
along with requisite passwords/passcode in the custody of the
Director.
6. Thereafter, on 07.11.2015, at 12.28 PM, the Petitioner received

the following e-mail from the Respondents:
Dear Jaymin
You are hereby informed to be present before the exam inquiry
committee at 2.30 pm today in the exam department.
Examination and Evaluation Management Division
7. The Petitioner, therefore, remained present in the university

premises at 2.30 pm, as had been directed by the Respondents
vide their aforesaid e-mail. The events that transpired thereafter,
came to be put into writing and placed on record by the Petitioner
vide his e-mail dated 07.11.2015 at 5.51 pm. The contents of the
said e-mail, being crucial for the adjudication of the matter at
hand, were read out in totality by the advocate for the Petitioner
at the time of hearing of the present petition; and are, therefore,
also being reproduced herein below, in their entirety. Mr. Virk has
Page 4 of 46

heavily relied on this communication to argue that there was pre-

determination and prejudice in the adjudication process to which
the Petitioner was subject. The e-mail dated 07.11.2015 at 5.51
pm, addressed by the Petitioner to the respondents read as under:
From: Jaymin Brahmbhatt

<brahmbhattjaymin33@yahoo.com>
Date: 7 November 2015 at 5:51:43 PM IST
To: GNLU Examination <examination@gnlu.ac.in>, "Bimal N.
Patel (GNLU)" <vc@gnlu.ac.in>, Vcoffice
<vcoffice@gnlu.ac.in>
Subject: Re: examination inquiry committee
Reply-To: Jaymin Brahmbhatt
<brahmbhattjaymin33@yahoo.com>
To,
The Vice Chancellor, Shri Bimal N. Patel
Ref.: Trailing e-mail dated 07.11.2015 (at 12.28 pm) received

from <examination@gnlu.ac.in>.
Dear Sir,
In view of the direction issued in the trailing e-mail, mentioned

herein above, I, along with my parent and representative,
remained present at the office of the Examination Department
at 02.20 pm.
I am writing this e-mail to you in a sense of desperation in view

of the circumstances which have transpired since 02.20 pm till
around 05.00 pm.
I was made to wait till 03.15 pm outside the Examination

Committee. In the meantime, I observed that the members of
the Exam Inquiry Committee (the terminology used in the
trailing e-mail) were sitting inside the room titled Examination
Committee Meeting Room. During the 45 minutes that I was
made to wait, Ms. Richa Sharma (purported complainant in my
Page 5 of 46

case, and invigilator during my exam) went inside the Meeting

Room and apparently briefed one of the members of the Exam
Inquiry Committee i.e. Ms. Pratima Dube, in my absence as
also, very shockingly, in the absence of the entire coram of the
Inquiry Committee. I was shocked to see that my answer-sheet
as also my cellphone were being examined by being taken out
of an unsealed envelop in an absolutely casual manner by Ms.
Dube as also Ms. Richa Sharma. Thereafter, Ms. Richa Sharma
left the Meeting Room. This act on part of the Examination
Committee, of inviting the purported complainant to secretively
discuss my matter in my absence is an absolute violation of my
rights and the Exam Inquiry Committee and its proceedings are
liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone.
Now, at this stage, at around 3.20 pm, I was called inside the
Meeting Room. Along with me, my authorized
representative/advocate also entered the room but, in an
absolutely rude and unparliamentarily manner, informed me
that only I would be permitted to remain present in the room
and that no other person would be allowed to remain present.
When my advocate politely requested Ms. Udapudi for the
reason for taking such an unreasonable stand, she, in a very
casual manner stated that the Director has constituted this
committee and you better go to the Director and procure
written permission from him if you wish to remain present
during the proceedings. Thereafter, so as to strike a
conciliatory note and not agitate the Committee members, my
advocate agreed to the unreasonable request of the Committee
but requested that a copy of the finding or report of the
Committee be provided to him before I sign the same. The
Committee members refused this request as well. At this stage,
they, in a highly derogatory tone stated that if their wishes
were not met, they would record that I had refused to
cooperate with the Committee and that they would give their
findings ex parte. Therefore, left with no option in view of the
unreasonable stand taken by the Committee, I entered the
Meeting Room alone while my father and my advocate waited
outside.
Page 6 of 46

At this stage it is pertinent to note that I was and have not

been informed as to under which provision, this purported
Exam Inquiry Committee has been constituted. The
procedure or conduct of the said purported Committee has not
been brought to my notice and it appears that the said
Committee was constituted with the sole intention to harass
me. I reserve my right, without prejudice to the present
communication, to challenge the said Committee, its
constitution, procedure (if any), and manner of conduct of its
proceedings.
Now, after I sat down alone before the Committee members,

they informed me that they would not hear me. They stated
that if I so desired, I could write down my rendition of facts. In
view thereof, I agreed to their unreasonable directive but
requested that I be provided with a copy of my statement. They
denied the said request, for reasons not known to me.
In view of the aforesaid, I have given my written statement as

per the unilateral directive of the Committee members. I have
not been provided with a copy of the said statement given by
me.
After my statement was submitted, the Committee members

decided to take my cellphone, which had been in their custody
since 02.11.2015 at 4.45 pm (collected from me by the Honble
Director in his chamber, in presence of Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr.
Avinash Bhagi, Ms. Mamta Biswal and my father), and charge it.
As they did not have the charger for my phone, the same was
provided to them by me so as to express my bonafides and
that I had nothing to hide.
The Committee members charged my phone and, asked for the

password for accessing the phone. I had already given the
password for my phone while handing it over to the University
on 02.11.2015, but, once again, so as to not create any petty
issue, I gave the password to Ms. Udapudi and Ms. Dube.
Page 7 of 46

Thereafter, both the Committee members examined my phone

to their satisfaction. They accessed my private photographs
without any jurisdiction but, at the cost of my privacy, I did not
object to the same so as to, once again, express my bonafides.
Thereafter, to my utter shock, they called Mr. Santosh Thakur

(purportedly belonging to the IT Department of the University),
and informed me that they would be copying all data from my
phone to their desktop-computer. I did not object to the same,
however, I gave my reservation as to the legality of such an
action on part of the Committee. Then, the Committee
members connected my phone to their desktop-computer and,
having accessed all the private data in my phone, proceeded
with viewing, on full-screen and in front of a handful of
administrative staff, my private photos so as to probably
embarrass me. However, as had been my stand since the
beginning, the Committee members did not find any
incriminating evidence/photos on my phone which could prove
that I had utilized it to copy during my QT (Quantitative
Techniques) examination on 02.11.2015. At one stage, Ms.
Udapudi excitedly exclaimed that she had caught me when
she found that I had a photograph of certain notes of
Interpretation of Statutes subject which was taught to me
during earlier semester. However, having realized that the said
photograph had nothing to do with the impugned issue, she
disappointedly returned to her normal self.
What becomes evident from the aforesaid narration of facts is

as follows:
1. The University has, after retaining my cellphone for 5
days, and after having found nothing to corroborate their
baseless allegation, called me for a hearing before a
Committee in an absolutely cosmetic and off the cuff matter
with the express intent of meeting a procedural formality.
Therefore, the entire proceedings that have taken place today
are absolutely predetermined and malafide.
2. The Committee members, for reasons not known to me,
have engaged into a fishing/roving inquiry to find anything and
Page 8 of 46

everything to implicate me for any baseless allegation

tendered by Ms. Richa Sharma.
3. The Committee has been constituted in an absolutely
casual manner. I have not been informed as to under which
provision/Rule, the said Committee has been constituted.
Therefore, the constitution of the Committee is questionable.
4. The principles of natural justice have not been followed
in the facts of the present case for the following reasons:
a. I have not been given an opportunity of being heard;
b. I have not been given an opportunity to confront my
accusers/complainants;
c. I have not been given an opportunity to cross examine
witnesses;
d. I have not been given an opportunity to be represented
by adequate counsel;
e. I have not been provided copies of any
documents/records or my statement; and
f. I have not been permitted to make oral or written
submissions (except the unilaterally mandated and coerced
statement that was procured from me by the Committee).
Coming back to the narration of facts, once the Committee had

exhaustively searched my phone and found no evidence of any
malpractice, they returned my phone to me, as they could do
nothing else. I, once again, requested for copies of my
statement as also the report/complaint submitted by the
complainant-Ms. Richa Sharma, but they denied the said
request.
In view thereof, I am certain that the Committee has been

constituted as a mere formality. Resultantly, I can expect
nothing but negativity from it, judging from the manner in
which I have been treated today afternoon.
I, therefore, request you to give me your final decision at the

earliest; and, I further request that, in case you propose to give
adverse decision against my interest, that you give me an
opportunity of making written submission and confronting/cross
Page 9 of 46

examining the complainant(s) so that correct version of facts

can be put to record.
I pray for your kind, fair, positive and equitable indulgence in

this matter.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Jaymin Brahmbhatt
13 A 031
8. The respondents never replied to the said e-mail addressed by the

Petitioner, and, instead, addressed the impugned e-mail-
communication dated 03.12.2015 which has already been
reproduced herein above. Even upon perusal of the Affidavit in
Reply filed by the Respondents, it becomes evident that the
Respondents have no answer to the aforesaid communication of
the Petitioner.
9. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Gursharan H. Virk for the

Petitioner. Advocate for the Petitioner has taken the court through
the narration of facts, as above, more particularly the contents of
the e-mail dated 07.11.2015 at 5.51 pm addressed by the
Petitioner to the Respondents.
10. Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Virk, has thereafter taken the
Court through certain provisions of the Gujarat National Law
University (Academic, Examination, Moots, Internship, Hostel and
Related Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules). The provisions of the Rules, relied on behalf of the
Petitioner, are:
2 (xiv) Examination Committee shall mean the committee

established to plan, execute and manage the examination
process in accordance with these regulations.
10 (b) The Director shall constitute an Examination
Page 10 of 46

Committee comprising of minimum of three teachers,

two from law and one from non-law area of teaching in
consultation with teachers and head of departments of
the University. The Examination Committee shall select a
Chairperson from amongst the members.
27 (v) A student shall have to pass all the subjects to be

promoted to the IV Year. No carry over is permitted to the
IV year.
38 (a) Committees for various Disciplinary Measures: The

University shall have the following committees to look into the
matters as specified against them:
(i) The Student Disciplinary Committee shall consider

the report submitted by the Faculty or Warden as
regards breach of proper discipline within the Academic
Block, Hostel and University campus.
(ii) The Student Disciplinary Committee shall consider the

matters for action against the student indulging in ragging etc.
(iii) The Examination Committee shall look into the

report submitted by the Faculty for unfair means and
malpractice detected during the examination and
thereafter for taking proper disciplinary action against
them. The Examination Committee shall inquire into all
cases of errors, mistakes, negligence, improper conduct
and malpractice of any kind reported or suspected to
have taken place at any level in the conduct of the
examination by papersetter, moderator, supervisor,
officer or employee of the University.
(b) Procedure for taking the Disciplinary Measure
(i) On receipt of the report about an indiscipline, the

appropriate Committee shall consider as to whether prima facie
action is required to be taken against the erring student. The
Page 11 of 46

appropriate Committee shall issue the show cause notice to

the erring student indicating alleged misconduct and/or
alleged action and/or breach of discipline at the
Examination Hall or Academic Block or Halls of
Residence or University campus.
(ii) The student(s) may be furnished with a copy of the

report and the documents which are relied upon and are
to be used against him and/or may direct him to take
inspection of such student(s), if it is not possible to
furnish a copy thereof.
(iii) The show-cause notice shall also contain the

proposed penalty that can be imposed against him, if the
misconduct is established.
(iv) The erring student shall furnish his explanation

within the prescribed time and shall be given an
opportunity of personal hearing before the appropriate
Committee and the Committee shall on consideration of
the evidence before it and after giving him reasonable
opportunity to defend shall make recommendations as
regards penalties to be meted out against such student.
(v) The said report of the appropriate Committee

containing brief reasons for arriving at the conclusion
against the erring student(s), alongwith all the
documents, which are part of the evidence, shall be
furnished before the Executive Council for the decision
on the disciplinary measure against the erring student.
44(a)(iv) ITEM: Adopting unfair means, such as possession of

materials like anything written on any part of the question
paper, or on clothing, or on any part of the body or carrying
any object or gadget such as a compass box, a scale, tissue
paper or handkerchief, etc. with depictions on it which
could be used for committing a malpractice.
Page 12 of 46

MEASURE: Cancellation of the end-term examination of that

particular subject of the candidate.
44(c) Any disciplinary measure(s), once imposed shall be

communicated in writing to the student, parents and/or
guardians of the candidate and the Committee for Recruitment
Affairs. A copy of all correspondence from the University to
student shall be placed in the personal file of the student and
the records shall be updated accordingly.
(d) A Student who is subjected to the above measures shall be

considered ineligible and prohibited from representing the
University in any co-curricular and extracurricular activities in
the following one year at least.
(e) A Student who is subjected to any of the above measures

shall be considered ineligible and prohibited from consideration
of recruitment and internship through the University, any
medal, award and financial aid from the
University.
(f) Notwithstanding the above measures, the Executive

Council on the report of the Examination Committee
may consider imposition of any other measures as it
may deem appropriate.
11. Mr. Virk has vehementry placed reliance on the provisions of

the Rules and has submitted that:
a. The Examination Committee (and not the Student

Disciplinary Committee or the ad hoc Examination Inquiry
Committee) was the nodal committee that was required to
look into any malpractice during examinations. The
Respondents, for reasons not evident on record, have
Page 13 of 46

constituted a special ad hoc Examination Inquiry

Committee constituting the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 so as
to deprive the Petitioner of the fair procedure prescribed
under the rules. The stand of the Respondents changes once
again in their Affidavit-in-Reply, wherein they contend that it
is the Student Disciplinary Committee that would look into
the alleged malpractice of the Petitioner. Therefore, the
Respondents, having realized that they have failed to follow
their own prescribed procedure, are now concocting belated
stories and imaginary procedures to harass the Petitioner.
The faculty alleging malpractice (the Respondent No. 5 in
the present case) was required to submit a report as
contemplated under the Rules. In the facts of the present
case, the said report does not exist, since it has not been
made available to the Petitioner (either in the form of a hard
copy or for inspection), as contemplated under the Rules.
Therefore, the Respondents have no basis for the initiation
of any inquiry against the Petitioner. Despite a specific
provision in the Rules to this effect, the Respondents have
not provided the Petitioner with a copy of the report of the
Respondent No. 5, if any; or any material or evidence sought
to be relied on against the Petitioner. Even inspection of the
said crucial materials has not been provided to the
Petitioner.
b. The Respondents were required to issue a detailed show

cause notice containing the particulars of the allegations
against the Petitioner along with the penalty proposed to be
imposed on him. Instead the Respondents issued a non-
speaking and summary e-mail dated 07.11.2015
(reproduced in earlier paragraphs of this judgment),
whereby a period of merely two hours was given to the
Petitioner to remain present during holidays in the
university, and that too without any particulars or details.
The Petitioner was required to be permitted to furnish his
explanation with a prescribed time and was required to be
given an opportunity of personal hearing before the
appropriate committee, which could only make
Page 14 of 46

recommendations against the Petitioner. This crucial step

was given a complete go-by by the Respondents who
supplanted their recommendatory powers with final-
directive powers, thereby denying fair treatment and
justiciable equity (under common law as also under the
Rules) to the Petitioner. The Executive Council of GNLU was
the final decision making body which would decide the
outcome of the recommendations of the appropriate
committee (i.e. the Examination Committee). Instead, the
Director of GNLU has usurped the powers of the Executive
Council for reasons not evident on record.
c. There was no depiction evidencing commission of

malpractice found on the body or person of the Petitioner,
therefore, Rule 44 would not be applicable in the present
case and the Petitioner could not be subjected to harsh
punitive measures on the basis of wrongful application of
the said Rule.Notwithstanding the powers of the
Examination Committee, the Executive Council on the report
of the Examination Committee could consider imposition of
any other measures as it may deem appropriate. This crucial
power was given to the Executive Council since the
imposition of penalties under the Rules would irreversibly
and prejudicially affect the career of any student of GNLU.
The Director of GNLU replaced his powers for the powers of
the Executive Council and thereby irretrievable affected the
career of the Petitioner.
12. Following authorities have been relied on behalf of the

Petitioner:
13. To put forth the settled principle of natural justice under academic
jurisprudence, advocate for the Petitioner relied on
Administrative Law, Tenth Edition, Commentary by
H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, Oxford University Press,
page nos. 426 and 465:
THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE OPPOSING CASE
Page 15 of 46

A proper hearing must always include a fair opportunity

to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting
or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view. Lord
Denning has added:
If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth

anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man
to know the case which is made against him. He must
know what evidence has been given and what
statements have been made affecting him, and then he
must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict
them
ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
Students have the protection of their contracts of

membership. It will be implied that in return for their fees
they will be treated in accordance with the university or
college rules, and natural justice will operate in the same
way as with members of a trade union or association
14. A pointed contention taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that there

is evident bias in the minds of the Respondents against the
Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner could never have expected fair
treatment at the hands of the Respondents. Mr. Virk has argued
that the Respondents conducted a fanciful inquiry with a
predetermined state of mind, and to put this contention into force,
relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the
case of A.K. Kraipark & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1969)
2 SCC 262:
13. The dividing line between an administrative power

and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being
gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is
an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power one has
to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person
or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the
Page 16 of 46

law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing

from the exercise of that power and the manner in which
that power is expected to be exercised. Under our
Constitution the rule of law pervades over the entire field
of administration. Every organ of the State under our
Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of
law. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the
jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a
rapid rate. The concept of rule of law would lose its
vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not
charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a
fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially
in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and
fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures
which are considered inherent in the exercise of a judicial
power are merely those which facilitate if not ensure a
just and fair decision. In recent years the concept of
quasi-judicial power has been undergoing a radical
change. What was considered as an administrative power
some years back is now being considered as a quasi-
judicial power.
19. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure

justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of
justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered
by any law validly made. In other words they do not
supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The
concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of
change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it
included just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge
in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa)
and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without
affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alterant
partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged
and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in
good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course of years many more
subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural
Page 17 of 46

justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts

that unless the authority concerned was required by the
law under which it functioned to act judicially there was
no room for the application of the rules of natural justice.
The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the
purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules
should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries.
Often times it is not easy to draw the line that
demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial
enquiries. Enquiries which were considered
administrative at one time are now being considered as
quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is
the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as
administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an
administrative enquiry may have more far reaching
effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. As
observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The
University of Kerala and Ors. [1969]1SCR317 the rules of
natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular
rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must
depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances
of that case, the framework of the law under which the
enquiry is held and the Constitution of the Tribunal or
body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a
complaint is made before a court that some principle of
natural justice had been contravened the court has to
decide whether the observance of that rule was
necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
15. Next, another decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant
& Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 182 has been relied on behalf of the
Petitioner:
10. The word 'Bias' in popular English parlance stands

included within the attributes and broader purview of the
word 'malice', which in common acceptation mean and
Page 18 of 46

imply 'spite' or 'ill- will' (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th

Ed.) Volume 3) and it is now well settled that mere
general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes
of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record so come to the conclusion as to
whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted
in the miscarriage of justice.
11. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not
fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal
enquires, intention, as distinguished from motive is the
all-important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act
has been equated with intentional act without just cause
or excuse (see in this context Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v.
Steven 1955 (1) Q.B. 275.
16. Narrowing down on his argument of bias to the extent of

perversity in academic/student matters, Mr. Virk has relied on the
decision of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Singhal v. P.R.
Mehta & Ors., AIR 1990 GUJ 48, wherein this Court observed as
under:
2. Petitioner, an engineering student, studying in third

year Mechanical Engineering, is rusticated with
immediate effect by the Principal, by order dated
March 27, 1989 from Sardar Vallabhbhai Regional College
of Engineering and Technology, Surat, for the period of
three years and also dismissed as the General Secretary
of the Students 'Council by the President, Students'
Council, by order of the same date, for having been
found involved in the incident of causing hurt, instigating
the students to cause hurt to the Municipal Corporator,
creating tension in the College and behaving rudely with
some faculty members and not pacifying the students
and controlling the situation as a leader of the students
community and failing in his responsibility.
4. The Petitioner has challenged the orders rusticating

him from College and dismissal as the General Secretary,
Page 19 of 46

mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was not afforded

opportunity of being heard and the order is passed
behind his back and even the statement of the Petitioner
was not recorded by the Inquiry Committee or by any
authority of the College and, therefore the action is
violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and
is arbitrary, unjust and mala fide. It is also contended
that the criminal case was already filed against him and,
therefore, the disciplinary action should not have been
taken against the Petitioner as that would prejudice the
case of the Petitioner and such an action is violative of
Arts. 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Report by the Inquiry Committee was also not furnished
to the Petitioner and even after the final punishment
order, no such report is given to the Petitioner. According
to the Petitioner, there is no sufficient evidence to
implicate the Petitioner for any such act and the
impugned order of penalty is based on no legal evidence
and, therefore, the finding is perverse and the penalty
order is null and void. One of the main grievances of the
Petitioner is that before imposing the penalty, no show
cause notice was served nor any imputations of charges
were given or served to the Petitioner to which the
Petitioner could have effectively answered and
consequently, no reasonable opportunity is given to the
Petitioner to meet with the alleged charges and,
therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Grievance is also made that the penalty of rustication for
three years is disproportionate and harsh and that the
order suffers from bias. The penalty order is challenged
as it cannot be considered to be a speaking order. The
Petitioner has tried to support his contention by his
affidavits, the Affidavit- in rejoinder and producing
certain documents referred to above.
6. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the

inquiry was held in his absence and, therefore, the
entire inquiry is vitiated as being in violation of
Page 20 of 46

principles of natural justice.
9. The point requiring consideration is as to

whether the sufficient show cause notice
containing the charges and the imputations of
allegations against the Petitioner, or even the
summary of the charges, is required to be served.
As discussed above, notice served was only to the
effect that the Petitioner had to remain present on
March 27, 1989 at 3.10 p.m. in the Conference
Room of the College before the Committee of the
College Hostel Wardens in connection with the
incident that took place at night on March 19,
1989. By the notice the Petitioner was not given
any intimation that the inquiry committee had
submitted the findings and the findings were
against the Petitioner. It was also not stated as to
what were the charges or the imputations of
allegations for which the Petitioner had to remain
present before the Disciplinary Committee. At least
the notice in the form of show cause notice containing
the summary of the findings should have been served to
the Petitioner so that the Petitioner could have prepared
himself to defend the allegations against him and
remained present before the disciplinary committee. In
absence of any such show cause notice it cannot be said
that the principles of natural justice are observed and not
violated. It is true that there are no statutory provisions
like the provision under Art. 311, Constitution of India,
before amendment, for the service of second notice for
showing cause for not imposing particular penalty, but
merely because there is no statutory provision either
under the South Gujarat University Act or under any rules
or regulations framed under the Act, that by itself is not
sufficient to hold that the delinquent should not be even
informed of the allegations against him or the findings of
the inquiry held against him. The decision by the
Disciplinary Committee, therefore, is vitiated for this
Page 21 of 46

reason.
24. None of the judgments referred by Mr. Shelat

learned Advocate for the respondents, lays down
the broad principle of law that mere service of
notice without any show cause does not offend the
principles of natural justice and that only fair play
would suffice the requirement before the
punishment of rustication is imposed.
26. From the above discussion, it should be held

that the Principal and the Disciplinary Committee
of Sardar Vallabhbhai Regional College of
Engineering and Technology, Surat, while
considering the disciplinary action of rustication
against the student is a quasi-judicial authority
and the principles of natural justice should be
observed before imposing the penalty. Compliance
of the principles of natural justice in such a case required
the service of show cause notice containing the details of
substance of the allegations and the findings of the
Inquiry Committee informing the delinquent student of
the allegations and the findings against the student so as
to enable to meet the charges and afford sufficient
opportunity to show cause. The opportunity of being
heard should be afforded to the students before imposing
the penalty. In the instant matter, even though both the
notices are held to be served to the Petitioner, the show
cause notice even indicating the allegations or the
charges and even the summary of the findings of the
Inquiry Committee were not served to the Petitioner and,
therefore, the principles of natural justice are violated
entailing the quashing of the punishment imposed on the
Petitioner.
17. Finally, Mr. Virk has relied on another decision of this Court in the
case of Jeet Patel v. Gujarat Technological University &
Anr., 2012 GLH (1) 226, wherein this Court, in identical facts
Page 22 of 46

and circumstances, observed as under:
4. The factual matrix of both the petitions is similar. For

the sake of brevity, the facts, as obtaining in Special Civil
Application No.13441 of 2011, are being reflected. The
Petitioner in that case is a student, pursuing the course
of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) in the Sardar
Vallabhbhai Institute of Technology (SVIT), Valsad
(respondent No.2). He appeared for the 6th Semester
Examination in the month of May/ June, 2011. Before the
final results of the said examinations were declared,
classes for the 7th Semester began on 28.06.2011, which
were regularly attended by the Petitioner. On
13.07.2011, respondent No.2 -College handed over to the
Petitioner, a communication addressed by the Gujarat
Technological University (respondent No.1) to respondent
No.2, dated 08.07.2011. By the said communication,
respondent No.1 - University instructed the Principal of
respondent No.2 - College to inform the Petitioner to
appear before the Examination Committee of respondent
No.1 - University on 20.07.2011, at 10:30 a.m., in
connection with an Unfair Means Case that had
purportedly been registered against him. According to
the Petitioner, the said communication does not state the
details of the Unfair Means Case, or ask for any
explanation. However, the Petitioner appeared before the
said Examination Committee at the time and date
stipulated in communication dated 08.07.2011. It is the
case of the Petitioner that he was informed for the first
time by the Examination Committee, that he has been
found guilty of indulging in unfair means and suitable
punishment would be inflicted upon him. The Petitioner
asserted his innocence before the Examination
Committee by submitting that he has not indulged in
unfair means. According to the Petitioner, the members
of the Examination Committee informed him that, in the
subject of Dynamics of Machinery, the answer to
question No.3(a) of the Petitioner and another student,
Page 23 of 46

(Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15424 of 2011)

is identical, and contains the same mistakes, the
Petitioner has allowed the other student to copy the
answer from his answer- sheet. According to the
Petitioner, the answer-sheets were not handed over to
him but were only shown to him from a distance of
approximately fifteen feet. The Petitioner was made to
record a statement, which he did, asserting that he is
innocent and has not copied from the other student,
though he was sitting behind him. Ultimately, on
18.08.2011, the authorities of respondent No.2 - College
handed over to the Petitioner, a copy of the impugned
decision dated 27.07.2011 taken by respondent No.1 -
University, whereby, the Petitioner has been found guilty
of indulging in unfair means. A penalty has been imposed
upon the Petitioner, cancelling the results of all subjects
of the current Semester examination, and debarring him
from appearing in the next two summer/ winter
examinations. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the
Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court.
8. It is clear from the material on record that no

show cause notices have ever been issued to the
Petitioners, regarding the alleged unfair means
adopted by them, and neither have they, at any
point of time, been asked to render their
explanations, before being summoned to appear
before the Examination Committee. The only
communication issued by the respondent -
University is dated 08.07.2011. It is addressed by
the Incharge Controller of Examinations of
respondent No.1 - University, to the Principal of
respondent No.2 -College, instructing the College
to inform the Petitioners to remain present at the
stipulated date and time before the Examination
Committee in connection with cases of unfair
means registered against them. This
Page 24 of 46

communication does not contain any details of the

type of unfair means allegedly indulged by the
Petitioners and is merely an intimation to the
College, which has further informed the
Petitioners. By no stretch of imagination can this
communication be called a show cause notice, as it
neither mentions the details of charges against
the Petitioners nor calls for any sort of explanation
from them. As such, it cannot be said that the
Petitioners were in a position to defend
themselves adequately, being unaware of the
exact nature of the allegations against them. This
would definitely put them at a disadvantage,
insofar as their defences are concerned. The
Petitioners have been straightaway summoned
before the Examination Committee. The exact
nature of proceedings that took place before the
Committee is not on record. However, it has been
asserted by the Petitioners that even their answer-
sheets were not given to them, but were only
shown to them from a distance of about fifteen
feet. This allegation has not been refuted by the
respondent-University in the affidavit-in-reply.
There is no material on record to indicate that the
Petitioners have been supplied with material in
support of the allegations against them. In such a
situation, there can be no adequate or effective
defence on the part of the Petitioners, which
would cause prejudice to them.
9. The exact nature of the charges against the

Petitioners is not very clear. Nothing is stated in
the impugned order regarding which of the
Petitioners is alleged to have copied from the
other, and which of them has permitted such
copying. A perusal of the impugned order dated
27.07.2011 makes it evident that the said order is
devoid of facts and shorn of reasons. It merely
Page 25 of 46

states that the Petitioners have been found guilty

and are being punished as per Clause- 3(d) of the
Circular dated 03.11.2010, entailing cancellation of
results of all the subjects of the current Semester
examination and debarring them to appear in the
next two summer/ winter examinations. No
reasons in support of the conclusions regarding
the finding of guilt are stated in the said order. It,
therefore, is not possible to gauge the grounds on
which the Examination Committee has arrived at
this finding and what the material was, on the
basis of which, the decision has been taken. It is a
settled position of law that unreasoned order is
not sustainable in law.
10. Another noteworthy aspect of the matter is

that the Petitioners have not been supplied with a
copy of the Report of the Examiner, on the basis of
which the Examination Committee appears to have
arrived at the impugned decision. By not issuing
the Petitioners a show cause notice, not supplying
the Report of the Examiner and any other material
against them, the Petitioners have been
prejudiced. There is no material on record to indicate
that the Report of the Examiner has been subjected to
further scrutiny by any Body of Experts. There is also no
indication that any inquiry has been conducted into the
allegations against the Petitioners. This aspect would
assume significance keeping in view the nature of
punishment inflicted upon the Petitioners. As such, it is
evident from the record that the principles of natural
justice have not been followed by the respondent -
University. The Petitioners are none the wiser regarding
the allegations against them and even at the stage of
their appearance before the Examination Committee,
their defences would be rendered meaningless and a
mere formality.
Page 26 of 46

11. For the above reasons, which emerge strongly from

the material on record, this Court cannot hesitate to state
that, by not issuing the Petitioners a show cause notice
enumerating the charges or allegations against them, by
not asking for their explanation in response to the same
and, by not supplying them with the copies of the Report
of the Examiner and other material against them, the
principles of natural justice have been violated by the
respondent No.1 - University, causing prejudice to the
Petitioners.
12. It is, no doubt, true that ordinarily, the Court would

not lightly interfere in decisions taken by educational
institutions, in educational matters. There can be no two
opinions that the standards and purity of education ought
to be maintained, and with this purpose in mind, the
action taken by educational institutions in cases where
unfair means are alleged to have been adopted, ought to
be sustained. At the same time, it cannot be denied that
any action taken by educational institutions is required to
conform to the settled principles of law and fair play. The
said action should be free from the taint of arbitrariness,
which would go to the very root of the matter. When the
action taken against any student (in this case, the
Petitioners) causes prejudice and entails civil
consequences, it would be all the more necessary to
follow the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of
hearing should not merely be an empty formality, as in
the present case, but should be a reasonable and
adequate one, enabling the student to put up an
effective defence. Not issuing a show cause notice or
supplying the Report of the Examiner and other material
to the Petitioners, has resulted in a situation where the
hearing before the Examination Committee has been
rendered a mere formality, as the opportunity of hearing
granted to the Petitioners is neither reasonable, nor
adequate. The Petitioners have been deprived of an
adequate opportunity to defend themselves which has
Page 27 of 46

caused prejudice, especially in view of the severe nature

of the punishment imposed upon them.
13. In Malav kumar Arunbhai Patel v. Sardar University

And Others -2007 (1) GLR 413, this Court, after
considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, has
held as below:
22. The provisions of Section 23(xxxii) of the Act
make it clear that the Syndicate was fully
empowered to constitute the "Unfair Means
Committee". Therefore, the ground taken by the
Petitioner that the Committee, being contrary to
the Ordinance of the University, had no power to
inflict the punishment upon the Petitioner and that
the proceedings should be declared null and void is
not correct and is not accepted. 23. Any action
taken by an administrative or quasi judicial
authority which entails civil consequences should
only be taken after complying with the principles of
natural justice. Although the principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a strait- jacket formula, it
cannot be disputed that the doctrine of natural
justice exists not only to secure justice but also to
prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is true that
strict rules of evidence do not apply in proceedings
such as those which took place in the case of the
Petitioner before the "Unfair Means Committee".
However, even the requirement of preponderance
of probabilities has not been adhered to since the
impugned Notification dated October 4,2000 as
well as the Minutes of the proceedings which led to
the passing of the impugned order do not disclose
the material which was available with the
committee which pointed out the involvement of
the Petitioner in the incident. In that view of the
matter, the impugned order is also not a speaking
one and does not disclose the reasons or the
grounds on which the decision to permanently
Page 28 of 46

debar the Petitioner has been taken.
In A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India, reported in

MANU/SC/0427/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 150 the aim and
relevance of the principles of natural justice have been
clearly enunciated by the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in para 20 thereof, which reads as under:
20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure

justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of
justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered
by any law validly made. In other words they do not
supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The
concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of
change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it
included just two rules, namely (1) no one shall be a
judge in his own cause (Nemo debet esse judex propria
causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party
without affording him a reasonable hearing (Audi alteram
partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged
and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in
good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course of years many more
subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural
justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts
that unless the authority concerned was required by the
law under which it functioned to act judicially there was
no room for the application of the rules of natural justice.
The validity of that limitation is not questioned. If the
purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules
should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries.
Often times it is not easy to draw the line that
demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial
enquiries. Enquiries which were considered
administrative at one time are now being considered as
quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is
the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as
Page 29 of 46

administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an

administrative enquiry may have more far reaching
effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. As
observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v.
University of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 990 of 1968, D/- 15-
7-1968 = (MANU/SC/0368/1968 : AIR 1969 SC 198) the
rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What
particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given
case must depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the law
under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of
the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that
purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court
that some principle of natural justice had been
contravened the court has to decide whether the
observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision
on the facts of that case.
18. Heard learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Raval, who, on
the other hand relied on the Affidavit in Reply dated 16.03.2016
filed by one Shri Thomas Mathew, Registrar of GNLU. She has
stated that the Respondents are willing to give a fresh opportunity
of hearing to the Petitioner and that the impugned communication
dated 03.12.2015 had been inadvertently addressed. However,
she has been unable to respond to or deal with any of the pointed
legal contentions and factual averments made on behalf of the
Petitioner.
19. Countering the contents of the Respondents Affidavit in Reply

dated 16.03.2016, the Petitioner has preferred an Affidavit in
Rejoinder on 22.03.2016. In the said Rejoinder of the Petitioner,
each of the contentions of the Respondents has been dealt with in
great detail. Some of the relevant portions of the Rejoinder of the
Petitioner (dealing with the Reply of the Respondents) may be
reproduced herein under for ready reference:
3. I state that on 02.03.2016, when the captioned

matter was listed for hearing, I was personally present in
Page 30 of 46

the Honble High Court of Gujarat when, at 5 pm, the

Respondents mentioned the matter out-of-the-blue and
stated that since the disciplinary inquiry/proceedings
were conducted in violation of the Rules in question and
since the said proceedings had been challenged by the
Petitioner, the Respondents were ready and willing to
give a fresh hearing to the Petitioner.
Contention of the Respondents that disciplinary

proceedings have not yet been completed
6) In their Reply, the Respondents have contended

that the captioned Petition is allegedly premature
because the disciplinary proceedings have not yet been
completed. The Respondents have now come up with a
concocted case that impugned order dated 03.12.2015
(at pg. 106) was the outcome of an alleged prima facie
inquiry. According to the Respondents, this prima facie
inquiry is pending completion of the inquiry by the
Student Disciplinary Committee. This argument is
absolutely spurious and depictive of the oblique motives
of the Respondents, guided by the Respondent No. 2 and
5, for the following reasons:
a) The Rules constitute various Committees. The
Student Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction over
examination related matters. It is only the Examination
Committee that take decisions in this regard;
b) The Rules do not provide for any prima facie

inquiry as is sought to be belatedly suggested by the
Respondents;
c) The outcome of the inquiry by the Examination

Committee was required to be furnished before the
Executive Council, which would take the final decision.
Instead, the Respondent No. 2 Director of GNLU
usurped the powers of the Executive Council and
Examination Committee and has now orchestrated a new
Page 31 of 46

story in the present Reply with the view to, as mere

formality, express inclination to conduct de novo inquiry
with a predetermined mind and then, come to the same
decision that he arrived at vide the impugned order
dated 03.12.2015;
d) The alleged de novo inquiry before the Student

Disciplinary Committee that the Respondents now
propose to conduct cannot be de novo (as the
Respondents contend), since it is admittedly based on
the alleged prima facie inquiry that took place on
07.11.2015 even as per the Respondents themselves.
Therefore the entire idea of de novo inquiry (not
contemplated under the Rules) is a misnomer being
utilized to mislead this Honble Court.
Contention of the Respondents in paragraph no. 8

of their Reply that it was reported that the
Petitioner had indulged in certain malpractice
7) The Petitioner has taken a categorical stand in the

captioned Petition that the Respondent No. 5 never
submitted the mandatory report about the alleged
indiscipline of the Petitioner, and the entire inquiry was
conducted without any such report, merely under oral
instructions of the Respondent No. 2, who is personally
interested in destroying the academic career of the
Petitioner.
8) This allegation of the Petitioner stands established

and proved beyond doubt in view of what has been
stated by the Respondents in paragraph no. 8 of their
Reply. The Respondents have utilized the vague phrase
it was reported since they are well aware that
there never was any report that was submitted by the
Respondent No. 5 (as contemplated under the Rules).
Had there been any such report, the Respondents would
Page 32 of 46

definitely have produced it before the Honble Court as

part of their Reply since the Petitioner has made serious
allegations against the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5
apropos the said report.
9) It is also pertinent to note that the said report is

not some sacrosanct, confidential document; and the
Rules mandate that the Petitioner is entitled to a copy of
the said report along with a show cause notice as also
other documents/evidence proposed to relied upon
against the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no plausible
reason that would have constrained the Respondents
from producing the said report as part of their Reply.
10) Upon receipt of the present Rejoinder, if the

Respondents do submit any such report, it is required to
be disregard by this Honble Court as it would obviously
and evidently be a belated outcome of the contents of
the present rejoinder. Any such alleged report,
submitted after receipt of the present Rejoinder by the
Respondents would obviously be fabricated at the behest
of the private Respondents.

of the Reply that through inadvertence, instead
of informing the Petitioner about the hearing to be
given before the Student Disciplinary Committee,
the Examination Section wrote an e-mail on 3rd
December, 2015 that examination stands
cancelled
11) The laughable contention of the Respondents in

paragraph no. 10 of their Reply is that they never
intended to cancel the examination of the Petitioner after
the alleged prima facie inquiry by the Examination
Committee and intended it to be subject to the decision
of the Student Disciplinary Committee (which does not
have any powers or jurisdiction in this regard, as stated
Page 33 of 46

herein above), which would, again, in turn, be subject to

the decision of the Executive Council of GNLU.
12) I respectfully submit that there is absolutely no

logic in the said submission of the Respondents. The
impugned order dated 03.12.2015 was consciously
drafted with the specific intent of summarily subjecting
the Petitioner to highly punitive actions with a view to
destroy the academic career of the Petitioner. The
illogical contentions of the Respondents in paragraph no.
10 are afterthought and belated. The impugned order
dated 03.12.2015 (at pg. 106) reads:
Dear Jaymin
You are hereby informed that the Examination Inquiry
Committee has given the following recommendation
(copied below) which has been approved by the
Director
Recommendation of the Examination inquiry Committee:
On the basis of exam regulation 44(a) and 44(a)(iv), the
punitive action recommended is Cancellation of end-
term examination of that particular subject of the
candidate that means the candidates end-semester
examination held on 2nd November, 2015 in the subject
of Quantitative Techniques of semester III (Repeat)
stands cancelled.

Contrary to the contents of the Reply of the Respondents,

more particularly those stated in paragraph no. 10 of the
Reply, following things become evident from the
impugned order dated 03.12.2015 (reproduced herein
above):
(a) The said order was a conclusive order which was a

result of a conclusive inquiry.
Page 34 of 46

(b) The said order was passed under the express

directions and instructions of the Respondent No.
2.
(c) Since the said order was a final/conclusive order, it

is established beyond doubt that the inquiry by the
Examination Inquiry Committee was a final inquiry and
not a prima facie inquiry as is the belated stand of the
Respondents in the paragraph under reply.
(d) The Respondents never intended to refer the

matter to the Student Disciplinary Committee (as is their
belated case in their Reply) since they were well aware
that the Rules never contemplated such referral to the
Student Disciplinary Committee or encroachment by it on
the jurisdiction of the Examination Committee.
(e) The inquiry proceedings were highly partial and

absolutely predetermined since they were not conducted
by the Examination Committee (as contemplated under
the Rules) but by another fly-by-night examination
inquiry committee that was conveniently constituted by
the Respondent No. 2 for the sole purpose of destroying
the academic career of the Petitioner.
(f) The examination inquiry committee constituted by

the Respondent No. 2 had admittedly considered Rule 44
of the Rules before giving its recommendation to the
Director. Therefore, the said inquiry by the examination
inquiry committee was conclusive and final. However, no
speaking order or reasons for the final decision were ever
provided to the Petitioner.
(g) The Respondent No. 2 Director admittedly and

uncontestably approved the final recommendation of
the committee he had constituted. Hence, he, in
conscious breach of the Rules, never intended to submit
the said approved final decision for consideration by
Page 35 of 46

the Executive Council.

of their Reply that Rule 38 of the Rules
visualizedde novo inquiryafter prima facie
inquiry
13) I respectfully submit that the contents of paragraph

no. 14 are absolutely false, mala fide, and vexatious and
have been averred with the express intent of reversing
the clock and wriggling out of the Writ Jurisdiction of this
Honble Court. I respectfully pray that should the
contents of the said paragraph under reply be negated,
then this Honble Court be please to impose exemplary
cost on each of the private Respondents, more
particularly the Respondent No. 2. The Respondents now
propose to constitute four hurdles (alleged prima facie
inquiry and subsequent final inquiry, to be subjected to
the approval of the Director and then the approval of the
Executive Council) that the Petitioner is expected to
climb-over blindly, without any documents that allegedly
form the basis of the Respondents predetermined state
of mind.
By cosmetically showing false bone fides and stating that

they would give the Petitioner a fresh opportunity of
hearing, the Respondent intend to do nothing but
prejudice the Honble Court. The outcome of the said
fresh hearing will be the same as the outcome of the
hearing that the Petitioner was subject to earlier since
both these hearings will be conducted under the tutelage
of the Respondent No. 2.
I state that being office-bearers of a national law

university, the private Respondents were expected to
show respect for due process and natural justice, if not
respect for their own Rules. I respectfully submit that
there have been innumerable cases where students who,
Page 36 of 46

for some or the other reason, are not complacent to the

unreasonable demands of the Respondent No. 2,
Respondent No. 5 as also the deponent to the Reply, are
put in line by utilizing disciplinary mechanisms. With
utmost respect to the Respondent No. 5, I state that I
was sexually harassed by the Respondent No. 5, and
when I agitated the said issue, I was sought to be
silenced by utilization of disciplinary mechanisms.
I state that I have, being fully conscious of the

repercussions, made extremely precise allegations
against each of the Respondents. Had any of the said
allegations been false, the private Respondents would
definitely have produced evidence/corroboration as part
of their Reply to nullify my allegations. However, none of
my extremely precise and pointed allegations have been
dealt with by the Respondents. This only goes to show
that the Respondents have no answer to the absolutely
correct submissions made by me in the Memo of the
captioned Petition. I respectfully urge the Honble Court
to take note of this silence (which is a sign of acceptance
of the contents of the Memo of Petition) on part of each
of the private Respondents, and take appropriate
exemplary action against each of the private
Respondents involved in the said mischief.
14) Finally, I respectfully submit that the following

pertinent issues raised by me in the captioned Petition
remain unanswered by the Respondents, for reasons not
known to me, and for reasons not evident on record, and
possibly for extraneous considerations:
a) The Respondents have remained silent regarding

the allegation of harassment faced by me at the behest
of the Respondent No. 5. The said contention, therefore,
stands proved beyond doubt.
b) The Respondents have admitted that Respondent
Page 37 of 46

No. 4 could not have presided over the inquiry against

the Petitioner. Even if the incapacity of the Respondent
No. 4 is ignored, the coram of Examination Committee
was not constituted in toto, and, therefore, the entire
punitive proceedings initiated against me are defective.
c) The Respondents have not dealt with the pointed

contention of the Petitioner that the disciplinary action
(contrary to the Rules) has been orchestrated by the
Respondent No. 2 to silence the Petitioner. The
Respondent No. 2 Director has, therefore, taken personal
interest in the present matter, for reasons not evident on
record.
d) The Respondents have remained silent in relation

to my specific contention that they have not complied
with the substantive and procedural requirements
prescribed under the Rules.
e) The Respondents have admitted that qua the

inquiry against the Petitioner, the deciding authority and
the hearing/inquiry authority were never the same.
Therefore, the predetermined mindset of the Respondent
No. 2 was superimposed over the entire adjudication
process since the very beginning.
15) I expressly deny that I expressed any regret before

the Respondent No. 2, as has been vaguely averred in
paragraph no. 8 of the Reply. Since I had not committed
any offence, the question of expressing regret does not
arise.
16) I expressly deny the contents of paragraph no. 11

of the Reply. However, out of respect for the concerned
female faculty member, I would not like to agitate this
issue unnecessarily.
17) Apropos the contents of paragraph no. 14 of the
Page 38 of 46

Reply, I respectfully submit that the requirement of

permitting an inadequately equipped student to be
represented by counsel/advocate/helper is not a right
that the Rules of the University can take away, much less
confer, on the Petitioner. The said right has its roots in
equity, which any academic institution, more particularly
the Respondent No. 1 University imparting legal
education, was required to follow. I had anticipated
absolutely insensitive and ridiculous treatment at the
hands of the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and had,
therefore, opted to be accompanied by an advocate for
the inquiry. The contents of my e-mail dated 07.11.2015
(at pg. 99) would go to show that my apprehensions in
this regard were not unfounded.
18) I, therefore, respectfully pray and submit that I

have been singled out and victimized by the private
Respondents for extraneous considerations. The
Respondents have barred me from pursuing my legal
education and from being promoted to the Fourth
Academic Year (Seventh Semester). This highly punitive
action is capable of destroying my career. Even as on
date, I am not aware of the reasons (and the
Respondents have produced no reasons as part of their
Reply) for which I have been subjected to such highly
punitive actions.
I state that the Respondents consciously sat tight over

the captioned Petition and did not file their Reply till
17.03.2016 so as to ensure that I would be disabled from
being promoted to the Fourth Academic Year.
I respectfully state and submit that I have emotionally

and mentally traumatized by the private Respondents for
reasons not evident on record and I pray that exemplary
cost is required to be imposed on the Respondents for
harassing me, defaming me and jeopardizing my career
for extraneous considerations.
Page 39 of 46

20. This court has considered the arguments tendered by the

Petitioner and the Respondents. All the pleadings on record, more
particularly the contents of the Affidavit in Reply of the
Respondents and the Affidavit in Rejoinder of the Petitioner have
been considered. Aforementioned authorities and commentary
cited by the advocate for the Petitioner has been considered.
Having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter, as
reproduced herein above, it becomes evident that the private
Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4,
went to great lengths to ensure that that Petitioner is cornered
and victimised, and that the Petitioner does not receive the just
treatment prescribed under the Rules. The reason for the said
victimisation of the Petitioner at the hands of the Respondents is
not evident on record. Right from the day when the Petitioner
appeared for the examination in question, he appears to have
been specifically selected for punitive treatment. The Respondents
did not find any incriminating evidence on the body or person of
the Petitioner. No averments, written or oral, were made by the
Respondents during the hearing and adjudication of the present
petition, to suggest otherwise. In fact, the Respondents have
remained silent on all the detailed factual averments and legal
contentions raised by the Petitioner. Next, instead on giving the
Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit his case, contest the
evidence against him (if any), and verify the report of the
Respondent No. 5 (if any), the Petitioner was haphazardly asked to
remain present on 07.11.2016 at 2.30 pm by an e-mail addressed
by the Respondents at 12.28pm. The reason for such callousness
at the hands of a prestigious National Law School is not known.
21. The deplorable treatment meted out to the Petitioner during his
interrogation by the ad hoc Exam Inquiry Committee is on record
in view of the Petitioners detailed e-mail dated 07.11.2015 (at
Annexure C, page 99 of the Memo of Petition). The Respondents
have not responded to the said e-mail of the Petitioner. When the
contents of the said e-mail are perused, it becomes evident that
the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had been instructed by the
Page 40 of 46

Respondent No. 2 to conduct an inquiry for the sake of meeting a

procedural formality. The Respondents had already decided to
destroy the Petitioners career even before the inquiry could have
commenced. The inquiry conducted by the Respondent Nos. 3 and
4 at the behest of the Respondent No. 2 can, at best, be compared
to the interrogation of criminals. Students in prestigious
universities are not expected to be treated in this manner. Even
the impugned order dated 03.12.2015 is replete with prejudice.
The said summary and non-speaking order merely communicated
the fact that the Petitioner had been subject to penalties under
Rule 44(a)(iv) as per the recommendation of the Examination
Inquiry Committee approved by the Director. The Petitioner was
never informed as to what were the contents of the report of the
Respondent No. 5 invigilator. In fact, the Reply of the
Respondents suggests that the said report does not exist at all,
as is the contention of the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner
was never given an opportunity of being heard, nor was he
permitted to inspect any material or evidence that was proposed
to be used against him. In fact, on 07.11.2015 itself, the
Respondents had, after thorough technical scrutiny of the cell
phone of the Petitioner at the hands of the IT Executive of GNLU,
returned the cell phone to the Petitioner without any allegation.
Therefore, even if all the other illegalities committed by the
Respondents are ignored for the sake of argument; even then, on
merit and factual analysis the Petitioner did not commit any
illegality. The conspicuous silence of the Respondents, in their
pleadings as also during oral arguments, is suggestive of the fact
that the Respondents cannot escape the illegalities committed by
them. The self-explanatory contents of the Rejoinder of the
Petitioner (reproduced herein above) nullifies each of the belated
contentions of the Respondents. I have also observed that though
notice was served upon the Respondents on 12.12.2015, the
Respondents waited for a period of over four months before they
filed their Affidavit in Reply on 16.03.2016. Mr. Virk has argued
that the Respondents have consciously delayed the adjudication of
the present matter so that ongoing academic year (third year)
would conclude and the Petitioners career would be affected
irreversibly since, the most punitive outcome of the impugned
Page 41 of 46

order dated 03.12.2015 would be that the Petitioner would be

debarred from attending classes in the subsequent year (fourth
year), as per Rule 27(v) of the Rules.
22. It appears that the Affidavit in Reply of the Respondents is also

silent on this aspect. Even during course of hearing of the present
petition, the learned advocate for the Respondents was unable to
establish that the Petitioner was involved in any malpractice. To
the pointed averments made by the learned advocate for the
Petitioner during hearing of this petition, evasive and slippery
replies were offered by the Respondents advocate. The only
request of the Respondents which, therefore, remains to be
considered is as to whether the Petitioner can be subject to a fresh
re-inquiry at the hands of the Respondents as has been requested
by them? I am not inclined to entertain this extremely belated and
highly prejudicial request of the Respondents. By making such a
request, the Respondents have indirectly admitted that their
impugned inquiry procedure (in dereliction of their own Rules) was
illegal and, resultantly, the contentions raised by the Petitioner
would appear to be true in their entirety. Secondly, the
Respondents had willingly returned the cell phone of the Petitioner
after they found no evidence to suggest that the Petitioner was
involved in any malpractice. The Respondents have not produced
any evidence to suggest that the cell phone of the Petitioner
contained any questionable content. Also, the Respondents appear
to have cosmetically made rule Regulation 44 of the Rules
applicable to the present case without any basis or evidence.
Finally, it would be highly prejudicial to the interest of the
Petitioner-student if, after facing almost four months of agony, he
is, once again, subjected to a new inquiry for no apparent or
plausible reason. The actions of the Respondents are suggestive of
grave prejudice against the Petitioner and this prejudice is likely to
permeate the re-inquiry that is being asked for by the
Respondents so innocently and innocuously.
23. This court is, therefore, of the view that the Respondents acts,
commissions and omissions since the 02.11.2015 till date,
including the highly self-contradictory and demeaning nature of
the Reply of the Registrar of GNLU, evidences the prejudicial and
Page 42 of 46

biased mindset of the Respondents. The Respondents are in

breach of their own Rules, more particularly the Rule 38. The
Reply of the Respondents further cements the contention of the
Petitioner that the Respondents adjudicative process has been
affected by a pre-determined mindset and mala fides.
24. The identical facts and resultant decisions of this Court in the
cases of Bhupendra Shingal (supra) and Jeet Patel (supra)
also come to the rescue of the Petitioner. Relevant portions of
these decisions have been reproduced herein above. In
Bhupendra Shingal, a student had been rusticated with
immediate effect. The student contended that the inquiry was held
in his absence and, therefore, the entire inquiry was vitiated as
being violative of principles of natural justice. This Court, in that
matter, had considered whether a sufficient show cause notice
containing the charges and imputations of allegations against the
Petitioner, or even the summary of charges, was required to be
served. Identical to the present case, even in that matter, the
student was simply asked to remain present on a specific date and
time and no other details were provided to the student. This Court
held that the said act of the institution was in violation of the
settled principles of natural justice since while considering
disciplinary actions, the university was a quasi-judicial authority
and the principles of natural justice were required to be observed.
In Jeet Patel, this Court was faced with a situation where students
were not in a position to defend themselves against the
allegations made by the university, being unaware of the exact
nature of the allegations against them. This Court held that by not
issuing show cause notice, not supplying the Report of the
Examiner and any other material against the students, the
students had been prejudiced.
25. I have found that said decisions cited by Mr. Virk squarely apply
to the facts of the present case.
26. In the present case, the ramifications of the highly punitive action
taken by and at the behest of the Respondent No. 2 Director of
GNLU was highly punitive and would have long-term negative
implications on the career of the Petitioner-student. The said
Page 43 of 46

decision would have resulted into the wastage of one academic

year for the Petitioner as he would not have been permitted to be
promoted to and attend the fourth academic year, as has been
discussed in detail in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.
Additionally, highly punitive ramifications at Regulation 44(c),
44(d) and 44(e) would be attracted. It is for this reason that the
Executive Council, comprising highly distinguished legal
luminaries, was required to be the final decision making authority
in all disciplinary matters. However, as has been rightly submitted
on behalf of the Petitioner, for reasons not evident on record, the
Respondent No. 2 decided to bestow upon himself the powers of
the Executive Council and approved the impugned decision
himself instead of placing it before the Executive Council, as has
been mandated under the Rules. Additionally, it was the
Examination Committee that was required to adjudicate the
Petitioners case. However, an ad hoc Exam Inquiry Committee
was constituted contrary to the Rules especially for the case of the
Petitioner. So as to not open a pandoras box, I would constrain
myself from further discuss another pertinent contention of the
Petitioner that one of the members of the Exam Inquiry
Committee, i.e. one Ms. Shobhalata Udapudi was also a member
of the Executive Council. It, therefore, becomes absolutely evident
that, in an absolutely haphazard manner, the Petitioner was made
the subject of an unjust experiment initiated by the pre-
determined and biased mindset of the private Respondent Nos. 2
to 6.
27. It is true that this Court would generally not interfere in academic
matters of universities, unless, of course, exceptional
circumstances persuaded the conscience of this Court to undo
grave and irreparable injustice. Even in such matters, this Court
would be slow in undoing a universitys decision unless, as is the
fact in the present case, the decision of the university is wholly
baseless, arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable, illegal and in stark
contradiction to the principles of natural justice. The facts of the
present case coupled with the law laid down by the Honble
Supreme Court as also this Court, has constrained this Court to
interfere in the present matter. All universities are cradles of the
Page 44 of 46

nations future. They are, therefore, required to conduct all acts in

a highly bona fide and exemplary manner. This responsibility
increases exponentially when the university is a premier National
Law School imparting legal education to the nations future
lawyers. How is a student of law expected to be a patron of justice
when his university is the epitome of injustice?
28. On consideration of arguments made by both the learned

counsels for the parties and perusal of the reply filed by the
Respondents and judgments cited by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, for above reasons it appears that for reasons not
evident on record, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 bypassed the Rules
and the Respondent No. 2 decided to supplant himself for the
authority of the Executive Council. Therefore, it appears that the
apprehension of the Petitioner that the private Respondents have
made the Respondent No. 1 University into an oligarchy where all
decisions are taken, reviewed and implemented by a select few,
and students are casually denied basic human rights and natural
justice.
29. The key question involved in the present petition, as per the
perusal of the matter and in view of the observations made by the
Honble Apex Court, and facts involved in the present case as
evident from the contentions of the e-mail of the Petitioner and
the conduct of the respondents, I have found that, the impugned
order dated 03.12.2015 which is against the principles of natural
justice and prima facie it can be considered that decision of the
Respondents is mala fide. Hence said order dated 03.012.2015 is
required to be quashed and set aside and the present writ petition
is also required to be allowed in totality. Hence, petition is allowed
and the Respondent No. 1 University is directed to expeditiously
evaluate and declare the result of the Petitioner for the
examination of Quantitative Techniques that was taken by the
Petitioner on 02.11.2015, but no later than 2 week from the date
of the receipt of the present order.
30. Direct Service is permitted. Notice is hereby discharged.
Page 45 of 46

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
KKS
After pronouncement of the judgment Ms.Raval, learned

advocate for the respondents prays for stay of the judgment for four
weeks. The request is rejected.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
Page 46 of 46

GNLU Case Final Judgement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GNLU Case Final Judgement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

C/SCA/20327/2015 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20327 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

HC-NIC Page 1 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

the Director and Vice Chancellor of GNLU. The Respondent Nos. 3

From: GNLU Examination <examination@gnlu.ac.in>

Dear Jaymin (Registration No. 13A031)

Recommendation of the Examination inquiry Committee:

HC-NIC Page 2 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

Following this, your exam of Quantitative Techniques

Examination and Evaluation Management Division

3. An interesting series of events and occurrences have culminated

4. The fact of the present petition is that on 02.11.2015, from 1.30

HC-NIC Page 3 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

5. Further, the case of the Petitioner is that upon leaving the

6. Thereafter, on 07.11.2015, at 12.28 PM, the Petitioner received

Examination and Evaluation Management Division

7. The Petitioner, therefore, remained present in the university

HC-NIC Page 4 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

heavily relied on this communication to argue that there was pre-

From: Jaymin Brahmbhatt

Ref.: Trailing e-mail dated 07.11.2015 (at 12.28 pm) received

In view of the direction issued in the trailing e-mail, mentioned

I am writing this e-mail to you in a sense of desperation in view

I was made to wait till 03.15 pm outside the Examination

HC-NIC Page 5 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

case, and invigilator during my exam) went inside the Meeting

HC-NIC Page 6 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

At this stage it is pertinent to note that I was and have not

Now, after I sat down alone before the Committee members,

In view of the aforesaid, I have given my written statement as

After my statement was submitted, the Committee members

The Committee members charged my phone and, asked for the

HC-NIC Page 7 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

Thereafter, both the Committee members examined my phone

Thereafter, to my utter shock, they called Mr. Santosh Thakur

What becomes evident from the aforesaid narration of facts is

HC-NIC Page 8 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

everything to implicate me for any baseless allegation

Coming back to the narration of facts, once the Committee had

In view thereof, I am certain that the Committee has been

I, therefore, request you to give me your final decision at the

HC-NIC Page 9 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

examining the complainant(s) so that correct version of facts

I pray for your kind, fair, positive and equitable indulgence in

8. The respondents never replied to the said e-mail addressed by the

9. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Gursharan H. Virk for the

2 (xiv) Examination Committee shall mean the committee

10 (b) The Director shall constitute an Examination

HC-NIC Page 10 of 46 Created On Thu May 05 15:51:03 IST 2016

Committee comprising of minimum of three teachers,

27 (v) A student shall have to pass all the subjects to be

38 (a) Committees for various Disciplinary Measures: The

(i) The Student Disciplinary Committee shall consider

(ii) The Student Disciplinary Committee shall consider the

(iii) The Examination Committee shall look into the

(b) Procedure for taking the Disciplinary Measure