High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Charanjit Singh v. S.K.Salwan & anr. - COCP-920-2006  RD-P&H 5279 (7 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYRNA AT
C.O.C.P. No.920 of 2006
Date of Decision:- 22.08.2006
Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner
S.K.Salwan & anr. ....Respondents
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
SURYA KANT, J.
The petitioner, a student of B.Tech (Civil Engineering), was subjected to disciplinary action by the University on being found guilty of using unfair means in the examination. He alongwith one more student was punished vide order dated 30.6.2003 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner was disqualified for five years means five semesters and as a resulted effect, he was declared to have failed in the examination held in May, 2002.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.W.P.No.608 of 2004 which was partly allowed by this Court on 10.5.2006. While upholding the above quoted order of punishment, a direction was issued to issue degree to the petitioner "without having to appear in the 8th Semester Examination."
Alleging non-compliance of the aforementioned order, this contempt petition has been filed.
In response to the show cause notice, Mr.Anupam Gupta, C.O.C.P. No.920 of 2006 2
learned counsel for the respondents has produced a photostat copy of forwarding letter dated 11.8.2006 addressed to the Principal of the College, vide which the petitioner has been asked to collect the original degree certificate from the University on any working day. A photostat copy of the degree has also been appended along with the above-stated letter.
Mr.P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that in the aforesaid degree, the petitioner has been shown to have passed the prescribed examination in December, 2004 whereas he had passed the same in May, 2002 and a mark-sheet in respect thereof was issued to him in July 2002. It is, thus, contended that the University was required to issue the degree with a clear stipulation that the petitioner had passed the prescribed examination in May, 2002.
On the other hand, Mr.Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the order of punishment (Annexure P-3) has been upheld by this Court, the same has to be given full effect and in terms thereof the examination in which the petitioner appeared in May, 2002 having been cancelled, he has been rightly shown to have passed the examination immediately after expiry of the period for which he was disqualified.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2006 and also keeping in view the implications and consequences of the order of punishment dated 30.6.2003 (Annexure P-3) which has to be given full effect, I am satisfied that the manner in which the University Authorities have interpreted and complied with the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by this Court, does not require any further action in these C.O.C.P. No.920 of 2006 3
proceedings. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to visit the office of the University on any working day and collect the degree.
Rule stands discharged.
August 22, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.