IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2937 of 2009 1. SATISH KUMAR PASWAN, S/O BADREE PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NOUDEGA, PO.-NARAYAN DOHAT, P.S. BAHERI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 2. BHOLA KUMAR, S/O LATE LALMUNI CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF RAJGIR (MAIN BAZAR), P.O.& P.S. RAJGIR, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 3. AMIT KUMAR ALOK, S/O SRI SUNIL KUMR SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAPUR, P.O. & P.S.- K. RATAWARA, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 4. NIRAJ PASWAN, S/O AWADHESH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHURGOAN, P.S. EKANGER SARAI, P.O.-DHURGOAN, DISTRICT-NALANDA ............. PETITIONERS Versus 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR 2. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA. 3. REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA. 4. DEAN (ACADEMICS), NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA ............. RESPONDENTS ----------- 02/ 05.03.2009 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. N. Pathak counsel for the National Institute of Technology. The petitioners, four in number are aggrieved by order dated 24.12.2008 whereby and whereunder finding them to have indulged in use of unfair means in an examination, the Dean (Academics) has passed an order suspending them from appearing any examination in the next academic sessions. Mr. Giri would submit that such order of punishment is against the violation of principle of natural justice and also against the safeguard in the curricula of the National Institute of Technology, - 2 - programmes of 2007 which prescribes the mode and manner of awarding punishment against the students found to be involved in malpractice and unfair-means practice. He has in this context referred to the special clause of the instructions which reads as follows:- a. The Hall in-charge is required to submit a detailed report to the Controller of Examination, regarding nature of malpractice and/or Unfair-means adopted by the student with relevant evidence (if any) with signature of the invigilators. b. The student shall be debarred from appearing at the examination in which he/she has been reported and legal action may also be taken as per rules. c. The Dean, Academic Affairs or Competent Authority after consultation with subject/course expert regarding evidence of Malpractice/Unfair-means adopted by the student, will issue notice to the student regarding status for appearing at subsequent papers in the Examination. d. The answer sheet with a copy of report shall be sealed in separate envelop and placed before the Unfair-means Committee for necessary decision and recommendation of action. e. The details of category and punishment in different case of malpractice and Unfair-means cases are placed at Annexure-D. Mr. Giri, therefore, would submit that when the - 3 - procedure itself under aforesaid Clause-c of the instructions envisages an opportunity of hearing by the Dean before passing the order of punishment, that having been not completed, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained. He would next rely on the provision of Clause-e of the said provision which has to be read with reference to Annexure-D thereof. In this respect his submission is that the punishment which has been awarded against all the petitioners is contrary to the provisions made in Annexure-D. He in this regard would expand his submission to the effect that the impugned order seeking debar the petitioners is for two academic sessions whereas for the nature of unfair-means the petitioners at best could be subjected to punishment for being debarred from one academic session only. All these aspects, in the opinion of this Court would definitely require some tact finding enquiry and a decision of the competent authority inasmuch as in the matter of academic discipline which is matter of prime concern its head must delve into the aspect from both academic as also disciplinary angles. That being so, this Court with the consent of the parties would remit the matter back to the Director of National Institute of Technology, Patna who upon filing of exhaustive representations by the petitioners would not only afford opportunity of personal hearing to them but also pass an order in accordance with the provisions made in the aforementioned curricula within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along - 4 - representations of the petitioners. Since this Court has remitted the matter back to the Director without expressing any opinion on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners the said authority without being prejudiced by the impugned order would take his independent decision in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations/directions this application stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)