IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2454 of 2008()
1. DR.ALLAN THOMAS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.2454 OF 2008
------------------------------
Dated this, the 19th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is an Assistant
Professor working under the Kerala Agricultural University.
He appeared for the Account Test for Executive Officers Part I
and II held by the PSC. He took the examinations for both the
Parts. The examinations were held on 4th and 5th of July,
2007, at Govt. H.S.S. Kanhangad. In the examination hall, the
appellant was found using a text book, in which portions from
other publications like Guides were pasted. The Inspection
Squad found this irregularity committed by the appellant and
reported to the PSC. The PSC based on that material arrived
at a prima facie finding that the answer paper concerned
should be cancelled and he should be debarred from taking
the examination for two years. The said provisional decision
was intimated to the appellant by Ext.P3 notice dated
16.1.2008. He was called upon to submit his explanation, if
W.A. No.2454/2008 – 2 –
any, within 15 days. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to
the said notice on 25.1.2008. The said reply reads as follows:
“Received the letter on 25.1.2008 by
registered post.
I may earnestly and sincerely report
that I have not committed any malpractice in
the examination held on 04.7.2007. No parts
of the guide was pasted in the book. The book
I used was in fact a very old book that was
used by one of my relative (School
Headmaster). I had to use that very old book
since I could not get a new one from any of
the bookstall during the period.
Hence, I humbly request that no action
may kindly be taken against me that affect my
service as a teacher with integrity.”
2. The PSC found the said reply not satisfactory and
by Ext.P5 order dated 7.8.2008 cancelled the concerned
examination paper and debarred him for two years from
taking Departmental Examination held by the PSC from
January, 2008. Though, thereafter, the petitioner filed
Exts.P6 and P7 representations, there was no response from
the PSC. Ext.P8 is the admission ticket issued to the
appellant. The instructions contained in it would show that if
a candidate is found to be indulging in malpractice, he will be
W.A. No.2454/2008 – 3 –
sent out of the hall immediately. Since the appellant was not
sent out of the hall, he submitted that he did not indulge in
any irregularity or illegality. The Writ Petition was filed
challenging Ext.P5. The learned Single Judge took the view
that in Ext.P4, the appellant has not specifically denied the
allegations against him stated in Ext.P3 and therefore, the
decision of the PSC was upheld. In that view of the matter,
the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that he has not indulged in any malpractice in the
examination hall. The book used by him did not contain any
pages from any Guide pasted in it. If he was found to have
committed any malpractice, he would have been immediately
sent out of the hall. But, he has completed the examination.
So, the findings of the PSC in Ext.P5 is unsustainable.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in dismissing
the Writ Petition, taking the view that he did not properly
explain his defence in Ext.P4.
W.A. No.2454/2008 – 4 –
4. The learned standing counsel for the PSC made
available to us the book stated to have been seized from the
appellant. Going by the book, it could be seen that the same
could not have been used in the examination hall and if it was
used, the same will definitely amount a malpractice and
therefore, the action was taken rightly. But, according to
the learned counsel for the appellant that the book produced
by the standing counsel does not belong to him. It must have
been seized from somebody else, it is submitted.
5. We considered the rival submissions made at the
Bar. In Ext.P3, there is specific mention about the report of
an Inspection Squad, which contains the adverse materials
against the appellant. As per the report, the appellant used
portions of a Guide by pasting them in the book. If the said
allegation was incorrect, an innocent person would have
immediately mentioned about the same in his reply, Ext.P4.
But, in Ext.P4, there is no mention about the Inspection
Squad or its report or the findings contained in that report.
He only stated no portions of any Guide was pasted in the
book. The learned Single Judge took the view that it is a
W.A. No.2454/2008 – 5 –
vague reply and he does not specifically deny the allegations
against him in Ext.P2. In that view of the matter, the Writ
Petition was dismissed.
6. We find no reason to take a different view. If the
appellant was innocent, his reply would not have been Ext.P4.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the book produced by the learned standing counsel for
the PSC does not belong to him, we find no reason to accept
that contention. Going by the book produced, we find it is
accompanied by the official proceedings of the PSC which
would indicate that it was seized from the appellant. There is
no reason for the PSC to cook up any material and falsely
implicate a particular candidate, who took the test.
In view of the above position, we find no merit in the
appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps