IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.727 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 17, 2009 Ashok Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/277 of the Constitution of India challenges Order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) under which examination of the petitioner has been cancelled on the proceedings initiated by the Standing Committee on unfair means and misconduct holding the petitioner guilty using unfair means in the examination in which the petitioner appeared in April 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such incident had occurred and therefore, the action of the respondents is not CWP No.727 of 2009 [2] warranted by law or facts. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the strength of the original record produced in Court, contends that the petitioner specifically admitted his misbehaviour with the Supervisor. Already a lenient view has been taken and only the examination taken by the petitioner has been cancelled. I have heard the learned counsel and considered the issue. It transpires that during examination on 30.5.2008, a report was furnished by the Centre Superintendent which is in the following words:- “The student, Ashok Kumar, was found with mobile phone in the examination hall. When he was checked by Supervisor he argued and misbehaved. Asst. Supdt. reported this matter to the Centre Supdt. Centre Supdt. and Dy. Supdt. advised him not to do so again, but he continued to argue and started misbehaving. It should be also taken into consideration that the student had misbehaved on the prior exam on 28th of May, 2008 and had tried to flee the examination hall without handing over answer book after the expiry of the time for exam.” The document is signed by the Assistant Superintendent, on duty Supervisor and the Superintendent. It seems that a notice was served on the petitioner whereupon the petitioner, on 3.10.2008 gave in writing (in vernacular) to the effect that he had taken the examination of B.Ed. He was not aware that case for misbehaviour had been made against him. He was not at fault and he had not CWP No.727 of 2009 [3] committed any act of misbehaviour. He be given an opportunity to appeal. Subsequently, it seems that the petitioner was heard. On 18.10.2008, the petitioner gave a letter to the authorities in writing which is to the effect that he had taken the examination in May/June 2008 in sub-centre of B.Ed examination. He indulged in misbehaviour with the supervisory staff. He had committed a mistake and furnishes unconditional apology. Essentially, the petitioner accepted his misconduct as alleged against him. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the penalty as noticed above has been imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he had given in writing accepting the misbehaviour with the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any procedural lapse that has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances do not call for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In view of the acceptance of the misbehaviour by the petitioner, there is no reason to judicially review the order passed by the authorities. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 17, 2009 JUDGE avin