1 cri-wp-3202-09 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2009 Chitra Anant Salunke .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.M. Thorat for petitioner. Mr. P. A. Pol, P.P. for State. Mr. P.M. Palshikar for respondent no.4. Mrs.S.P. Shinde for respondent no.7. Mr. V.B. Tiwari for respondent no.8. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Mohite for respondent no.9. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 22, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for the following relief:- 2 cri-wp-3202-09 “Call for the relevant papers and proceedings from the office of respondent-authorities and after going into the legality of the same, direct the respondent-police officers to forthwith register offence in relation to the Final Year LL.B. Examination conducted by the In-charge Principal of respondent-college in collusion with and/or with a view to help Shri Bishnoi K.L. and for that purpose issue appropriate writ and/or order.” 2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, one of the faculty members with respondent no.5 – Law College and on 12/3/2005 viva voce examination of Paper No. X was to be conducted by her at about 8.30 a.m. and in that process, she received the list of 13 students (Attendance Sheet) and the names of first 12 students were typed, but the name of the student at Sr.No.13 was hand written. Respondent No.9 was the student at Sr.No. 13 in the said Attendance Sheet. It is her further allegation that when she received the said Attendance Sheet, she noticed that the marks for respondent no.9 were already written by the Acting Principal i.e. respondent no.8 in his hand writing and the Attendance Sheet was not signed by respondent no.9. The remaining 12 students appeared before her, 3 cri-wp-3202-09 she conducted the viva voce and completed the process of granting marks. On 14/3/2005 she was surprised to see that the Attendance Sheet was signed by respondent no.9 against his name, which signature was not seen on 12/3/2005. It was under these circumstances, she submitted a representation to the respondent no.4 – University on 18/3/2005 and alleged that respondent no.9 did not appear for viva voce on 12/3/2005 and respondent no.8 awarded the marks to respondent no.9 for viva voce, despite respondent no.9 did not appear for the same. 3. As per the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Vithal Gokhale, Deputy Registrar of respondent no.4 – University, the said representation was enquired into and in the meeting of the Board of Examination, held on 16/7/2009, it was resolved that the explanation furnished by the Principal of Respondent No.5 – College vide his letter dated 2/4/2005 was to be accepted and the said decision was to be communicated to the concerned police station (Item No.18 of the Agenda). The petitioner has filed additional affidavit making further allegations against respondent no.9. She claims that when she started following up her representation dated 18/3/2005 submitted to the University, respondent no.8 submitted a complaint dated 6/5/2005 to respondent no.9. As per the petitioner, 4 cri-wp-3202-09 respondent no.9, at the relevant time, was the In-charge of the Economic Offence Wing of Mumbai Police and he could not have entertained and acted upon the said complaint dated 6/5/2005. The petitioner further alleges that respondent no.9 wrote to Kakatiya University on 11//5/2005 and enquired about the B.A. degree obtained by her from the said University. She further alleges that respondent no.9 had shown undue personal interest in entertaining the complaint dated 6/5/2005 and conducting an enquiry into her B.A. qualification. It is the petitioner’s further case that respondent no.9 submitted to the said University a document about roll number, which did not belong to the petitioner and based on such document, the University informed that such a student was not awarded the B.A. Degree. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has emphatically stated that she has sufficient documentary evidence obtained under the Right to Information Act in the intervening period to show that respondent no.9 did not appear before respondent no.8 for viva voce on 12/3/2005 any time before 8 a.m. 4. We have gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.4- University, respondent no.8 as well as respondent no.9. As of now, in our considered opinion, there is no prima facie material to 5 cri-wp-3202-09 direct the concerned police station i.e. Azad Maidan Police Station to register the petitioner’s complaint and undertake an investigation. However, the issues raised by the petitioner in her representation dated 18/3/2005 addressed to the University of Mumbai and the additional affidavit-in-reply filed making allegations against the acts of respondent no.9 are required to be enquired into. It would be in the interest of all the parties concerned that such an enquiry is conducted by a Judicial Officer. Respondent No. 9 is a senior IPS Officer of the rank of Special Inspector General of Police and in the process of the enquiry undertaken into her qualification, the petitioner faced a judicial enquiry conducted by a retired judge of this court. Though the findings in the said enquiry are that she did not pass her B.A. degree before joining the LL.B. Degree Course, the enquiry officer thought it appropriate to exonerate her and has allowed her to obtain the B.A. degree afresh. We are not required to go into as to whether the said recommendation has been accepted by the respondent no. 4 – University or not, and the petitioner may have her own remedy to prove her qualifications. 5. In the premises, we appoint Shri M. L. Tahaliyani, Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai to conduct an enquiry 6 cri-wp-3202-09 into the following issues: (a) Whether respondent no.9 appeared for the viva voce examination on 12/3/2005 at 7.30 a.m. before respondent no.8. (b) Whether respondent no.8 conducted the viva voce of respondent no.9 on 12/3/2005 at 7.30 a.m. and awarded him the marks. (c) Whether it was permissible for respondent no.8 to conduct the viva voce of respondent no.9 on 12/3/2005. (d) Whether respondent no.9 could have entertained and acted upon the complaint dated 6/5/2005 submitted by the respondent no.8 to him regarding the B.A. qualifications of the petitioner. (e) Whether respondent no.9 took undue personal interest in enquiring into the complaint dated 6/5/2005 submitted by respondent no.8 (f) Whether respondent no.9 submitted a document regarding the roll number of B.A. Examination to Kakatiya University, which did not belong to the petitioner. 7 cri-wp-3202-09 6. We direct that the enquiry be conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible but preferably by 31st October, 2010. The petitioner, respondent no.8 and respondent no.9 as well as the authorized officers of respondent no.5 – College and respondent no.4 – University shall appear before the Enquiry Officer on 30th July, 2010 at 2.00 p.m. and submit the documents, on which they want to rely upon, along with the list of witnesses. 7. The enquiry report be submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) by 15th November, 2010. 8. The petition stands disposed off in terms of the above order. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)