IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2454 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.31895/2008 DATED 13/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------- DR.ALLAN THOMAS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PADNAKKAD P.O. KASARAGOD- 671 322. BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,S.C, K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2454 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 19th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is an Assistant Professor working under the Kerala Agricultural University. He appeared for the Account Test for Executive Officers Part I and II held by the PSC. He took the examinations for both the Parts. The examinations were held on 4th and 5th of July, 2007, at Govt. H.S.S. Kanhangad. In the examination hall, the appellant was found using a text book, in which portions from other publications like Guides were pasted. The Inspection Squad found this irregularity committed by the appellant and reported to the PSC. The PSC based on that material arrived at a prima facie finding that the answer paper concerned should be cancelled and he should be debarred from taking the examination for two years. The said provisional decision was intimated to the appellant by Ext.P3 notice dated 16.1.2008. He was called upon to submit his explanation, if W.A. No.2454/2008 - 2 - any, within 15 days. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to the said notice on 25.1.2008. The said reply reads as follows: “Received the letter on 25.1.2008 by registered post. I may earnestly and sincerely report that I have not committed any malpractice in the examination held on 04.7.2007. No parts of the guide was pasted in the book. The book I used was in fact a very old book that was used by one of my relative (School Headmaster). I had to use that very old book since I could not get a new one from any of the bookstall during the period. Hence, I humbly request that no action may kindly be taken against me that affect my service as a teacher with integrity.” 2. The PSC found the said reply not satisfactory and by Ext.P5 order dated 7.8.2008 cancelled the concerned examination paper and debarred him for two years from taking Departmental Examination held by the PSC from January, 2008. Though, thereafter, the petitioner filed Exts.P6 and P7 representations, there was no response from the PSC. Ext.P8 is the admission ticket issued to the appellant. The instructions contained in it would show that if a candidate is found to be indulging in malpractice, he will be W.A. No.2454/2008 - 3 - sent out of the hall immediately. Since the appellant was not sent out of the hall, he submitted that he did not indulge in any irregularity or illegality. The Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P5. The learned Single Judge took the view that in Ext.P4, the appellant has not specifically denied the allegations against him stated in Ext.P3 and therefore, the decision of the PSC was upheld. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has not indulged in any malpractice in the examination hall. The book used by him did not contain any pages from any Guide pasted in it. If he was found to have committed any malpractice, he would have been immediately sent out of the hall. But, he has completed the examination. So, the findings of the PSC in Ext.P5 is unsustainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in dismissing the Writ Petition, taking the view that he did not properly explain his defence in Ext.P4. W.A. No.2454/2008 - 4 - 4. The learned standing counsel for the PSC made available to us the book stated to have been seized from the appellant. Going by the book, it could be seen that the same could not have been used in the examination hall and if it was used, the same will definitely amount a malpractice and therefore, the action was taken rightly. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellant that the book produced by the standing counsel does not belong to him. It must have been seized from somebody else, it is submitted. 5. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. In Ext.P3, there is specific mention about the report of an Inspection Squad, which contains the adverse materials against the appellant. As per the report, the appellant used portions of a Guide by pasting them in the book. If the said allegation was incorrect, an innocent person would have immediately mentioned about the same in his reply, Ext.P4. But, in Ext.P4, there is no mention about the Inspection Squad or its report or the findings contained in that report. He only stated no portions of any Guide was pasted in the book. The learned Single Judge took the view that it is a W.A. No.2454/2008 - 5 - vague reply and he does not specifically deny the allegations against him in Ext.P2. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 6. We find no reason to take a different view. If the appellant was innocent, his reply would not have been Ext.P4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the book produced by the learned standing counsel for the PSC does not belong to him, we find no reason to accept that contention. Going by the book produced, we find it is accompanied by the official proceedings of the PSC which would indicate that it was seized from the appellant. There is no reason for the PSC to cook up any material and falsely implicate a particular candidate, who took the test. In view of the above position, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps