Not Always Necessary To Hold Detailed Enquiry Against Each Individual Where Enquiry Is Against Several Persons: Allahabad High Court
In a case involving large number of fake “ODs” in Amity University, the Allahabad High Court has held that when enquiry proceedings are being held against large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold a detailed enquiry against every individual involved.“OD” is the attendance earned by students by participating in trainings, seminars, workshops or other...
In a case involving large number of fake “ODs” in Amity University, the Allahabad High Court has held that when enquiry proceedings are being held against large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold a detailed enquiry against every individual involved.
“OD” is the attendance earned by students by participating in trainings, seminars, workshops or other extra-curricular activities. It is an online system and ODs can only be granted using login-id and password of the faculty involved.
The bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“It is now well settled that violation of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula but depends on facts of each case. Where enquiry is not against any particular individual but broad based and involves a large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold detailed enquiry against each individual. If on examination of facts, it emerges that a fair procedure has been adopted without causing any material prejudice to any person then the courts have declined to interfere.”
The Court discussed the theory of “useless formality” which provides that if no real prejudice has been cause to the parties, then striking down the action on ground of violation of principles of natural justice will be an empty formality. Accordingly, the Court held that though there may be procedural lapses, there was no violation of principles of natural justice to vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings.
The Court observed that the University had taken a lenient view in meeting out the punishments. It was observed that such mass indiscipline could not have been let go unpunished as it would send a wrong message. Furthermore, it was observed that declaring the inquiry vitiated, would necessarily be followed by a remand order to proceed afresh. Any such order would prolong the agony of the students.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the inquiry conducted by the University.
Factual Background
The second respondent (student) was admitted to B.Tech Course (Computer Science) in the appellant- Amity University in the academic session 2016- 2020. He was suspended in the 7th semester for indulging in making of unauthorised and fake “ODs” (on duty) attendances. In conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the student and others, he was rusticated for a period of 6 months from the date of his suspension. In appeal, the Vice Chancellor reduced the period from 6 months to 3 months.
The Writ Court set aside the order of punishment of grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. It was observed that the student was neither supplied the adverse material nor the enquiry report, no formal chargesheet was served upon him. It was held that the punishment was disproportionate. Further, directions were issued to the University to issue a fresh mark sheet to the student treating him as a regular student and to evaluate him out of 100 marks, which had the effect of removing the 'B+' Cap and also not make any reference to the disciplinary action taken against the student in the mark sheet and delete the endorsement “reappearance in September, 2020”.
The University filed an appeal against the order of Single Judge on grounds that the student was well aware of the charges against him and he never raised any such ground at the time of filing appeal before the Vice Chancellor. It was argued that the action was taken against various students and faculty members who were involved in making fake “ODs” and the student cannot claim to be prejudiced. The order of the Single Judge questioning the validity of the enquiry without granting liberty to proceed afresh will have large ramifications as punishments have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.
Regarding the removal of R-01 B+ Cap, it was argued that since the student had not met the mandatory criteria for attendance due to rustication, he was rightly granted the endorsement on his marksheet.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the University had conducted the enquiry at three different levels: Departmental Committee; thereafter by a Proctorial Board; and finally by University Level Committee.
The Court observed that based on emails exchanged between the University and the student, he was aware of the charges and proceedings against him. There was no complaint raised by him regarding violation of principles of natural justice at any level of the inquiry or appeal.
The Court relied on Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha and others wherein the Supreme Court held that in case of mass cheating by candidates, it was not necessary to provide each candidate with an opportunity of hearing.
The Court further relied on the decision of Supreme Court in ECIL v. B.Karunakar and Aligarh Muslim University and others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan to describe the theory of “useless formality” as
“It provides a yard stick for judging whether a particular violation of any principle of natural justice would render the action illegal and void. It stipulates that if no real prejudice is evident then it would be empty formality to strike down the action on ground of violation of principles of natural justice.”
Justice Gupta, speaking for the bench, held that there was no violation or unfair play to vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings.
The Court observed that remitting the case back to the authorities for fresh hearing would have far more serious consequences for the student. However, the Court observed that
“The indiscipline was of such great magnitude that the University despite having taken very lenient view in the interest of students could not have absolved the students and given them clean chit as it would have sent a wrong message.”
The Court relied on Shivam Kant vs. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court had held that remand made by the High Court for conduction fresh inquiry will only prolong the agony of the students who had already suffered. The Supreme Court had directed that the students maintain good behaviour and in case they indulge in any act of indiscipline, the same must be reported to the Court.
Accordingly, the Court held that the inquiry proceedings in the present case being broader in nature cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court, however, refused to interfere with the relief granted by the Writ Court removing the R-01 B+ Cap even though it may be a necessary consequence of the rustication. The Court held that such endorsement would “definitely visit him with evil consequences all through his career.”
“We agree with his view that in matters relating to students, while on one hand, the University has to ensure maintenance of discipline to ensure a conducive academic atmosphere, but at the same time it is also obliged to adopt reformative approach which is critical for bringing back indisciplined students to the main stream,” observed the Court.
Case Title: Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 637 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56