'Serious Misconduct': Gujarat HC Declines Plea By Govt Officer Debarred From Taking Class-I Officer's Exam For 'Misbehaving With Invigilator'

While dismissing a plea by a government officer debarred from the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) 2023-2024 due to her alleged misconduct in preliminary examination, the Gujarat High Court observed allegations against the officer were serious and not expected from a person appearing in Class-I officer's exam.  

The petitioner officer moved the high court challenging the order of GPSC debarring her from taking the main examination, after it was alleged that during the preliminary examination she violated exam protocols and misbehaved with the invigilator and lady constable present in the examination hall.

A single judge bench of Justice Nirzar Desai in its October 18 order said,“I find the misconduct, which is alleged against the present petitioner, is very serious in nature and the same is not expected from a person, who is appearing in the examination for Class-I officer. When, the petitioner is appearing in an examination for the post of Class-I officer, it was expected of her to respect and comply with the instructions issued by the Respondent – GPSC for the said purpose.”

The court observed that the issue was not just about the petitioner not hearing the warning bell or confusing it with the final bell, which she had claimed. It was about her overall behaviour and conduct towards the invigilator and the female police constable, that had “disturbed the Court to the core", the court said. 

The candidate who, an employee of the GST Department, applied for the Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I post. She appeared for the preliminary exam based on Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) on January 7, 2024, where the candidates are given 3 hours to attempt 200 questions. It was alleged that she continued answering questions after the final bell, mistaking it for the warning bell. When instructed to stop, she refused, leading to an argument with the invigilator and a police constable who had to intervene.

It was submitted by the counsel of the candidate that the petitioner missed the warning bell and mistakenly thought she had 10 more minutes, so she kept answering questions. The counsel argued that it was an honest mistake, not misconduct, and that barring her from the main exam was too harsh and uncalled for. Further, the counsel submitted a full inquiry wasn't conducted, she was unfairly treated. As a result, requested the court to quash and set aside the order that barred her from taking the main exam.

The Petitioner further made several representations to GPSC between April 18 to May 2. The respondent commission issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on May 2 as to why an action should not be initiated against her for breaking the exam protocols and further, she was asked to appear in person on May 23, where she tendered and unconditional, written apology to GPSC.

GPSC did not accept her apology and explanation regarding the incident and thereafter issued an order on June 4 barring her from taking the main examination for violating exam rules. GPSC announced the main exam for various posts, scheduled between October 13 and 27. The petitioner's counsel argued that the chargesheet was not issued nor any proceedings or inquiry was conducted against her and therefore, the petitioner is denied a fair chance to put up her defence.

Counsel appearing for GPSC strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the Court has limited power to consider the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the petitioner's misbehaviour and her actions were captured on CCTV and the footage will show the petitioner continuing to answer questions after the exam ended and her misbehaviour with the invigilator and the female constable who escorted her out of the exam hall.

It was submitted that, despite the seriousness of the petitioner's misconduct, the Respondent GPSC has taken a lenient approach as they did not inform the petitioner's parent department or file a complaint regarding her behaviour with the female police constable. The petitioner sent several representations to GPSC apologizing for her actions, which suggested that she admits her guilt. Therefore, it was argued that there was no need for an inquiry since she has already accepted responsibility. The counsel further submitted that the punishment given to the petitioner by GPSC is appropriate and light considering the seriousness of her misconduct. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

The high court in its order observed that since the case is based on facts, this Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited. The court said that petitioner's counsel had failed to demonstrate that this is an exceptional case, wherein, the findings of facts are, though, against the petitioner, the interference of this Court is necessary. 

Justice Desai further observed when the final bell rang and the invigilator asked the petitioner to submit her OMR sheet, she refused and continued answering for another 5 to 7 minutes. If she had truly mistaken the final bell for the warning bell, she would have stopped when alerted. When the invigilator called a lady constable for assistance, the petitioner misbehaved with her as well, the court noted. Notably, the presence of CCTV cameras did not prevent her inappropriate behaviour toward both the invigilator and the constable, the court added.

The Court further observed after the show-cause notice, the petitioner appeared before GPSC on May 24, and submitted an unconditional apology, admitting her guilt. As a result, GPSC barred her from the main examination but she is not barred from future exams, it noted. Since she did not challenge the notice or the procedures before the punishment, the arguments about procedural issues cannot be accepted, the high court said. Therefore, the request for an inquiry is also denied, as the petitioner's admission of guilt makes it unnecessary, the court said. 

The Court further observed that the GPSC had taken a "lenient view" and merely debarred the petitioner from appearing in the main exam in spite of the serious misconduct by her as it could have had an adverse impact on her existing service with the state government and so the GPSC's action cannot be termed as “unjust or unreasonable”. 

It thereafter dismissed the plea. 

Case Title: Vaishali Gagjibhai Variya vs Gujarat Public Service Commission

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 161

Click Here To Read/Download Order