IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22659 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JERIL SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN THOMAS, AGED 18, NARANGATTIL HOUSE, 50/306A, PRASANTHI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM-682 024. BY ADV. MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) MR.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL, MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM. 4. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22659/2009-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16/06/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSION REPORT DATED 18/06/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 25/10/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 32163/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 10/07/2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 09/01/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE CARRYING OUT CORRECTION IN EXT.P6. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21/03/2009. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 07/04/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22659/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a 5th semester student of B.Tech (Civil) Engineering in Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kothamangalam. Ext.P1 memo was issued to the petitioner alleging that there was an attempt on his part to commit malpractice in the course of the examination and an enquiry was conducted. Ext.P2 is the enquiry report. An application submitted by the petitioner for registration of 3rd semester was rejected stating that final decision on the allegations of malpractice levelled against the petitioner has not been taken. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C). 32163/2008. This Court directed the petitioner vide Ext.P4 to appear for the examination on a provisional basis. Results were thereafter, declared as per the orders of this Court. Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner has passed the subjects with an average of 66%. 2. In the meanwhile, Syndicate took a decision as per Ext.P6, holding that the petitioner is debarred from W.P.(C).22659/09 2 appearing in any examination for a period of six months preceding May 2009. Thereafter, Ext.P8 memo was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the punishment proposed therein should not be imposed. Petitioner relied on Ext.P2 and submitted Ext.P9. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 as corrected by Ext.P7, and seeking a declaration that the petitioner need not write all the examinations in the 3rd semester which he had already done on the strength of the order earlier passed. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Bindu and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University Mr.T.A.Shaji. 4. Ext.P6 is taken as a decision by the University and Ext.P8 cannot be treated as show cause notice. Nor can it be termed as a provisional decision. Ext.P6 has been taken without hearing the petitioner. Final order in the disciplinary matter should obviously adhere to the W.P.(C).22659/09 3 principles of natural justice. Ext.P2 enquiry report evidences that the inscriptions on the cover of the box of the candidate were not useful, as they were not relevant to the examination which the petitioner was participating at that point of time. 5. In the result, Ext.P6 shall stand set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner and the Syndicate of the M.G.University shall take a decision inter alia referring to Ext.P2, after hearing the petitioner and finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs