University's Violation of Natural Justice Quashed; Lack of Evidence, Non-Speaking Order, Appeal Granted

The court found that the University violated principles of natural justice by not informing the petitioner of specific charges beforehand and conducting a detailed inquiry. It also noted that there was no evidence to support the University's assumption regarding alleged misconduct. The court deemed the University's order as a non-speaking order, lacking reasons or discussion of evidence. The petitioner was not provided with the Disciplinary Committee's report, depriving him of a defense opportunity. Relying on relevant case law, the court quashed the University's order, directed result declaration, and allowed the appeal, disposing of related applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
2. Alleged Misconduct and Evidence
3. Nature of the Order Passed by the University
4. Opportunity to Defend and Disclosure of Report
5. Relevance of Cited Judgments

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant-petitioner argued that he was called by the Disciplinary Committee without any show cause notice, thus not being made aware of the charges against him. The petitioner was informed about the rough work on page 23 of his answer sheet only when he appeared before the Committee on 24.02.2016. He denied the allegations and contended that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was not informed of the specific charges beforehand and that no detailed inquiry was conducted by the University.

2. Alleged Misconduct and Evidence:
The petitioner admitted to using page 23 for rough work but denied any intention to reveal his identity to the examiners. The University presumed that the petitioner used rough work to disclose his identity, leading to the cancellation of his results and debarment from examinations. The court found that there was no evidence to support the University's assumption that the rough work was done to reveal identity. The court emphasized that the University should have conducted a detailed inquiry to substantiate the allegations.

3. Nature of the Order Passed by the University:
The impugned order dated 08.03.2016 by the University was deemed a non-speaking order as it did not provide reasons for the punishment imposed or how the alleged misconduct was proven. The court highlighted that the order lacked any discussion or reference to evidence, making it a non-speaking order, which is not permissible in law.

4. Opportunity to Defend and Disclosure of Report:
The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the Disciplinary Committee's report, which was only submitted during the petition's pendency. This deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to defend himself. The court noted that the University violated the principles of natural justice by not supplying the report and not providing adequate opportunity for defense.

5. Relevance of Cited Judgments:
The court examined various judgments cited by both parties. The Division Bench decision in Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma v. South Guj. University was relevant as it discussed the rule of "no evidence" and the necessity of probative value in evidence. The court found that the present case lacked evidence against the petitioner. The judgments cited by the respondents, including Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore and Prem Prakash Kaluniya v. Punjab University, were distinguished on facts. The court concluded that the University's decision was based on assumptions and lacked substantive evidence.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 by the University and the judgment dated 26.04.2016 by the learned Single Judge. The respondents were directed to declare the petitioner's result forthwith. The appeal was allowed and disposed of, and the related civil application was also disposed of.

---