The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court (HC) recently imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on the Lucknow University for withholding the result of a student on account of allegation of misconduct without any definite and concrete finding of the student’s culpability.
Priyanka Dubey, a student of B.Sc. 3rd year, took the examinations in 2009. There were allegations of answer sheet manipulation in six subjects against her. The University, however, failed to provide any substantive evidence or a clear decision regarding these allegations, leaving the petitioner in academic limbo for several years.
The bench of Alok Mathur said, “No opportunity was given to the petitioner nor there is a definite finding with regard to the culpability of the petitioner…the Lucknow University is responsible for ruining the career of a student.”
After her results were withheld, Dubey’s repeated attempts to resolve the issue went unanswered by the University, which neither confirmed the alleged misconduct nor absolved her of it until a show-cause notice was issued on February 20, 2010, demanding a response within 15 days. Dubey complied, submitting her reply on March 12, 2010, vehemently denying the allegations. However, the University remained silent, neither communicating any decision nor progressing the case further.
It was only in 2012, more than three years after the initial examinations, that the University’s Examination Committee decided to allow Dubey to appear as an exempted candidate in the 2012-13 academic year while cancelling her 2009 examinations. Crucially, this decision was never communicated to Dubey, preventing her from taking the 2012-13 examinations.
In 2014, Dubey approached the court with a writ petition, after which she was informed about a fresh decision by the University dated November 15, 2014, reiterating the cancellation of her 2009 examinations and allowing her to retake the exams in 2014-15. This fresh decision led to the filing of the current writ petition.
The high court highlighted the University’s gross negligence and failure to adhere to natural justice principles. It noted that the Examination Committee’s order dated November 15, 2014, lacked any concrete findings proving the alleged answer sheet manipulation by Dubey. Instead, it was based on mere conjecture and presumption.
The court emphasised that the show-cause notice issued in 2010 was cryptic and lacked essential details, including copies of the answer sheets and the inquiry report, which were necessary for Dubey to mount a proper defence. The University’s failure to communicate its decisions to Dubey further compounded the injustice, rendering the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, the court held.
The Court referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including the landmark cases of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Punjab v. Resham Singh, which establish that administrative orders must be communicated to the affected party to be effective. The court reiterated that non-communication of orders nullifies them and prevents any further action based on such orders.
Given the prolonged administrative lapses and the adverse impact on Dubey’s educational future, the court declared both the 2012 and 2014 orders as illegal and non-est. It criticized the University for its negligent conduct, which deprived Dubey of her right to complete her education in a timely manner.
Comments
0 comment