SURESH KOSHY GEORGE versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 15-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
B 
c 
f) 
E 
F 
G 
SURESH KOSHY GEORGE 
v. 
THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS. 
July 15, 1968 
[J. M. SHELAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Kerala University Act, 1957,-Rules fra1ned by Syndica1:e delegating 
power to Vice-chancellor to hold inquiri?s on malpractices during exa1ni .. 
nation~rules not followed-if inquiry invalid. 
1Vatural Justice-principles of-if require that inquiry report 1nust be 
furnished ·with show-cause notice. 
As certain preliminary reports indicated that 
the 
appellant 
had 
indulged in malpractices during an examination, the Vire-Chancellor of 
the respondent University appointed the second respondent to conduct 
an enquiry. The second respondent submitted a report holding the appel· 
lant guilty of the malpractices and on the basis of this report, a show 
cause notice was issued to the appeJlant by the Vice-Chancellor. 
After 
the appellant had submitted his ~xplanation in response to the notice, 
and not being satisfied with his exrlanation, the Vicei-chancellor passed 
an order debarring the appellant from appearing in any examination 
for a year. 
This order was subsequently approved by the Syndicate of 
the University. 
The appellant challenged the Vice-Chancellor's order by a writ peti-
tion under Articl·~ 226 contending inter alia that (i) the rules framed 
by the Syndic·ate. delegating its povvers to the Vice-Chancellor required 
that for conducting the inquiry he should have1 appointed an officer 
designated by the principal of the college in which the appellant appeared 
for his examination; this was not done in the present case and hence 
~ere was no proper inquiry; and (ii) the impugned ordet- was invalid 
inasmuch as no copy of the report made by the second respondent was 
made available to the appellant before he was called upon to subn1it his 
explanation in response to the show cause notice. A Single Bench of the 
High Court 'a11owed the petition, but his decision was reversed in appeal 
by a Division Bench. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal. 
(i) The rules made by the Syndicate of the University under which 
the inquiry was ordered were not statutory rules but nierely rules frarned 
for guidance. 
The rule under \vhlch the Vice-Chancellor was required 
to request the principal of the concerned co11ege to appoint ·an Inquiry 
Officer merely laid down a convenient 
precedure. 
Hence 
the Vice-
ChanceUor cannot be said to hav~ contravened any Jaw in appoin.ting 
the Inquiry Officer not designated by the principal. 
Furthermore, the 
principal in the present case was the father of the appe11ant; the Vice-
Chancellor was therefore right in not appointing him but an independent 
person. as the Inquiry Officer. [321 B-C, F-H) 
H 
(ii) There was no. breach of the principles of natural justice in the 
appellant not being furnished with a copy of the rep·ort of the second 
respondent before he was called uoon to give his 
explanation. 
Ihe 
appellant had been duly informed of the charge against him long before 
the inquiry began; the inquiry was held after due, notice to him and in 
L 12 Sup C.l./68-6 
318 
SL'PRE~IE COIJRT RHORTS 
(1969] IS.CR· 
his presence: he 
\~·as allowed to cross-cxarnimnc the \l+'itnesses examined 
A 
in the case ·an<l he \\-'<1s permitted to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the 
ch;1rge. 
No n1k: .. either slatutory or othcr\\liSl\ required th Vice-Chancel· 
lor to make ava1Jahlc to the appellant a copy of the report subn1iued 
by the Inquiry Officer. [322 B-CJ 
lfossc/ v. Duke of Norfolk e111d others, [1949] I All 
E.R. 108 
(at 
118); Local (/o\·cr11n1cn1 Board v. A lrid~t\ [ 19151 A.C. 120. !Jr V ertcuil 
v. Knaggs and A1zr., [1918] A.C. 557; Hyrne and A11r. v. Ki11cn1atograph 
B 
]~enters Society Ltd. & Ors .. ['1958] All E.R. 579; TliC' /loard of Higli 
Scho~l and /11JC'r111ediate l::ducation U.P. \'. Ba1;lcslzwar Prasad llnd ()rs .• 
[1963] 3 S.C.R. 767 (775). referred to. 
B. Surinder. Singh Kanda v. (fo\'?rn111cnt oj tire 
Fedcrarior, of 
,\1afaya, rt962] .A.c·. 322; General Council of Medictil T:clucation and 
/~egistration of tire United Kingdo1n v. Spack11uz11, (1943] 2 All E. 
Re-
porb, 337; 1\',·11· l'rakash Transport Co. v. New Su1·an1a Transport Co., 
C 
[19571 S.C.R. %; distin:,'llished. 
There is an crro~ous impression evidently influenced by the provi-
!>i0ns i~_ Art. J 11 of the Constitul!On particularly a.s they stood before the 
amendment of 
that Article th;!I e\'ery di~ciplinary proceeding n1ust con-
sist of l\VO inquiri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.