Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the order dated 01-04-2024, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years, and to quash the impugned order dated 17-05-2024 whereby the respondent (‘University’) imposed the same punishment on the petitioner, the Single Judge Bench of Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.*, stated that the submission by the petitioner that the punishment was disproportionate, could not be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the Regulations provided for two years of disqualification and there was no reason for this Court to give any punishment which was lesser than the same. Secondly, the petitioner was a student of LL.B., and he would be a future lawyer.
Thus, the Court did not deem it fit and proper to grant indulgence in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
Background
The petitioner was a student of a student of B.A. LL.B. of the University and in December 2023, when he was taking first semester examination, an unfair means case was made against him related to the paper of Law of Contract.
Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to him regarding the same, and he replied to the University and appeared before the Committee. Thereafter, it was decided that since the petitioner was caught by the team along with objectionable material, which was recovered from him in his own handwriting and the same were copied at page 16 and 17 of the answer book, a punishment was imposed upon the petitioner whereby he was disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years (four exams) including that in which he was found guilty in terms of Regulations 5(a) and 8 of the University Calendar Volume II, 2007 (‘the Regulation’).
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application before the Vice-Chancellor of the University but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner submitted that he would press this petition on the ground of proportionality. He submitted that two years was a long time regarding his disqualification because his career would be affected and if some directions were issued for reduction of the aforesaid punishment, then his career would be saved.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the only issue involved in the present case was whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner should be reduced or not. The Court referred to the Regulation and stated that as per the aforesaid regulations, the punishment provided was two years of disqualification when a student was caught in mala in mala fide possession of any of the materials mentioned in the Regulation.
The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner while appearing in first semester in the subject of Law of Contract was found with handwritten notes, which were in his own handwriting and the same were copied at Pages 16 and 17 of answer book. The Court stated that the submission by the petitioner that the punishment was disproportionate, could not be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the Regulations provided for two years of disqualification and there was no reason for this Court to give any punishment which was lesser than the same. Secondly, the petitioner was a student of LL.B., and he would be a future lawyer.
The Court stated that the legal profession was a noble profession and was governed by legal ethics. Thus, the Court did not deem it fit and proper to grant indulgence in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
[Randeep Singh v. Panjab University, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 13869, decided on 05-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohit Jaggi, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Subhash Ahuja, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
