Can VC Reduce Punishment For Exam Impersonation Despite Rules Mandating Permanent Expulsion? Patna High Court Refers To Division Bench
The Patna High Court has referred to a Division Bench the question whether the Vice-Chancellor of a University has discretion to impose a lesser punishment where the University's Unfair Means Rules prescribe cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion for impersonation in an examination.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar expressed disagreement with the view taken by a coordinate Bench in Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar v. State of Bihar, which had held that the Vice-Chancellor's statutory discretion to impose a range of punishments was not curtailed by the Unfair Means Rules. The earlier Bench had consequently reduced the punishment of permanent expulsion imposed on MBBS students found guilty of impersonation.
The present case concerned an MBBS student of Government Medical College, Bettiah, against whom proceedings were initiated after another student was allegedly caught appearing in his place in the ENT examination. The incident was reported by the invigilator and subsequently verified by the Centre Superintendent and Observer. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show-cause notice and appeared before the University's Unfairmeans Committee.
The Committee found the charge of impersonation proved and recommended cancellation of his admission and expulsion from the University. The Vice-Chancellor accepted the recommendation and imposed the prescribed punishment. The petitioner challenged the action before the High Court. During the proceedings, reliance was placed on Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar, where a coordinate Bench had dealt with other MBBS students punished for impersonation, including the student who had allegedly appeared in the examination on behalf of the present petitioner.
In Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar, the Court had held that although the Unfair Means Rules prescribed cancellation of admission and expulsion for impersonation, those Rules could not fetter the discretion vested in the Vice-Chancellor under Section 27(d) of the University's Statute. It had held that the Vice-Chancellor could consider a range of punishments depending upon the facts of the case.
That Bench had also found permanent expulsion to be disproportionately harsh and modified the punishment imposed on the students.
The present Bench, however, expressed reservations over that interpretation. It observed that discretion necessarily depends upon the existence of a choice between available punishments. In the present case, the applicable rules prescribed only one punishment where impersonation was proved i.e., cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion. The Court observed:
“Since, any discretion, vested upon any authority depends upon the choice available. In the case at hand, the statutory rules framed under Section 27(d) of the statute provides one and only punishment of cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion in case of proved impersonation by the Unfairmeans Committee.”
The Bench further disagreed with the earlier view that the Vice-Chancellor had mechanically accepted the recommendation of the Unfairmeans Committee merely because he had not considered a lesser punishment. It reasoned that where the Rules themselves prescribed a particular consequence for impersonation, imposing that punishment could not be faulted merely for want of consideration of a lesser penalty.
The Court also referred to the earlier decision in Prashant Bharti, concerning judicial interference with decisions of University authorities in unfair-means cases. It clarified that Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar could not strictly be regarded as per incuriam to that decision because Section 27(d) was not under consideration in Prashant Bharti. However, it found that the issue of the Vice-Chancellor's discretion required fresh consideration.
Finding divergent views, the Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Court said:
“This Court, guided by the judicial discipline, refer the matter to the learned Division Bench after taking consent of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in order to give quietus to the divergent views taken by this Court with the learned co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar (supra).”
The Court also noted that the University had already preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision in Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar and directed that the present matter be placed along with that appeal. The petition would abide by the final decision of the Division Bench.
Case Title: Arvind Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6968 of 2025
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
For AKU: Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate; Dr. Anand Kumari, Advocate; Ms. Tooba Hera, Advocate