V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated 27th March, 1973 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages and for a declaration that the notification issued by the University withdrawing his B.A. degree be declared as null and void.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that he appeared at the B.A. examination conducted by the Rajasthan University in the year 1962 and he was declared successful. In 1963 he took his M.A. (Previous) examination but he could not succeed. On 29th July. 1963 he was served with a notice by the defendant University asking him to submit the certificate of the institution where the plaintiff was working as a whole time paid teacher by 5th August, 1963. The letter is Ex. 3 on record which shows that this enquiry was instituted by the University on an information received that the plaintiff was a Government servant and working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Rajasthan Police Radio Organisation.
3. According to the plaintiff he sent a reply to this letter on 3rd August, 1963 but this letter never reached the University. On 29th March, 1964 the University again sent a letter to the plaintiff under a registered cover that the plaintiff was found to be serving as A.S.I. in the Rajasthan Police Radio Organisation when be appeared at his B.A. and M.A. (Previous) examinations as a teacher candidate and thus obtained permission from the University by fraudulent means to appear at the said examinations. He was, there fore, asked once again to prove before the University authorities that he was a whole time paid teacher in a reccgnised school and directed to submit his reply before the University authorities by 25th March, 1964 falling which it would be presumed that the allegations levelled against the plaintiff were true. It was also intimated to the plaintiff that his case will be considered by the Senate on 30th March, 1964. It appears that the reply sent, by the plaintiff on receipt of letter dated 20th March, 1964 did not reach the University authorities by the time allowed by the University. The reply Ex. 6 was however sent on 14th April, 1964. Before the said reply Ex. 6 was received the University addressed a letter dated 4th April, 1964 that the Syndicate at its meeting held on 25th February, 1964 has cancelled his M.A. (Previous) Economics examination of 1963 and has debarred him from appearing at any examination of the University for a period of 5 years. It may be mentioned that though the plaintiff has sought for the cancellation of this letter of the University (Ex. 8) dated 4th April, 1964 but learned Counsel for the appellant did not press his claim before this Court in appeal relating to the cancellation of his M.A. (Previous) examination and limited his argument only to the withdrawal of the degree of the B.A. issued to the plaintiff in the 15th convocation of the University.
4. On receipt of the letter of the plaintiff dated 14th April, 1964 (Ex. 6) the University took a lenient view and asked the plaintiff to represent his case personally on 25th April, 1964 before the Registrar. It is contended that the plaintiff in pursuance of this letter dated 25th April, 1964 (Ex. 2) met the Registrar in the office and placed before him his case verbally. The Registrar, it appears was not satisfied by his verbal pleading and, therefore, be again addressed a letter (Ex. 13) dated 2nd May, 1964 to the plaintiff to submit certain documents to prove that he was really whole-time teacher of an institution before he was permitted to appear at the examination as a teacher candidate.
5. It is not on the record as to what documents were produced by the plaintiff before the University in pursuance of the letter Ex. 13. However the University seems to have waited for a long time and on 4th May, 1965 it issued the impugned declaration Ex. 14 mentioning that the Senate by its resolution No. 12 dated 30th March, 1964 withdrew the B.A. degree awarded to the plaintiff at the 15th Convocation on 19th January, 1963. This action was taken by the Senate under the authority conferred on it by Statute 15 of the University Hand-book.
6. When this notification was served on the plaintiff he preferred to file a suit claiming that he was not given an opportunity by the University to explain his case before it, and that the action taken by the University has caused damages to the plaintiff Rs. 4000/- special damages) and Rs. 6000/- (general damages) and in these circumstances it was prayed that the notification dated 30th March, 1964 be declared null and told as it was issued without giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff which according to him was In clear violation of the principles of natural justice and also claimed a decree for Rs. 10 000/-.
7. The University in its written statement denied the charge that proper opportunity was not given to the appellant and a setted that the appellant fraudulently obtained permission to appear at the B.A. and MA. (previous) examinations by representing that he was a teacher a the time of the examination but he was actually working as A.S.I. in the Police Radio Organisation. In the opinion of the University the plaintiff took permission fraudulently and therefone after giving all the opportunities the University was constrained to take the action of withdrawing the degree.
8. Various issues were framed by the trial court The most important of them for disposal of this appeal are issues No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 which relate to the fact whether during the relevant period he plaintiff was actually full time employee as a teacher in the DigVijay Girls School, Jaipur and whether resolution of the Syndicate dated 30th March, 1964 so adopted without any notice to the plaintiff and without giving him an opportunity to explain his case and therefore, it was illegal, improper, null and void against the plaintiff,
9. The plaintiff in order to prove that he was in the employment of the Dig Vijay Girl School, Jaipur at a whole time teacher at the monthly emoluments of Rs. 40/- per month, produced two documents Ex. 1 & Ex. 2. Ex. 1 is a certificate issued by Vijay Devi Shukla the Orgaiser of the institution Dig Vijay Vidya peeth, certifying that he plaintiff had served as whole time paid tea her from 1st July, 1960 to 31st March, 1993 and that Ex. is an appointment letter issued to the plaintiff by Smt. Vijaya Devi appointing him as a teacher from 1st July 1960 at the salary of Rs. 40/- per month Smt. Vijaya Devi has come, in the witness box and has tried to prove these two documents issued by her in favour of the plaintiff showing that he was appointed is a teacher and hat he served the institution managed by her from 1st July, 1960 to 31st March, 1963. Witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have also been examined to establish that the plaintiff Ramswaroop had actually served as a whole time paid teacher on the 'Dig Vijay Vidhya Peeth', Jaipur The 'Dig Vijay Vidya Peeth appears to be a school for girls organised by P.W. 6 Vijaya Devi. P.W. 2 Ramchcandra has stated that the plaintiff had served as a teacher from 1958-59 to 1961 the Dig Vijay Vidya Peeth where he was also serving aa a part time Accountant P W 1 Ram Swaroop has stated that he had joined the service on 1st July, 1960 and remained in service till 30th June, 1963 where as Smt Vijaya Devi PW 6 has accepted the continuity of the plaintiff's service in the institution till March, 1963. Kalu Ram PW 3 is another witness and states that Ramswaroop was in 'Dig Vidhaya Peeth' from 1961 to 1962. From the statements of these three witnesses there is considerable variance regarding the period of service rendered by Ramswaroop with 'Dig Vijaya Vidhya Peeth'. It is true that Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were the certificates issued by Smt. Vijaya Devi. But Vijaya Devi's testimony has not been believed by the trial court on the ground that there was complaint against her that she used to iusse false certificates to enable the teachers to take their examinations in the university.
10. It is to be seen whether the testimony of Snot, Vijaya Devi can be believed. Smt. Vijaya Devi has tried to prove the two documents Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 which could be made available at any time to establish that the plaintiff was actually in service of the institution but she stated that other record of the institution was taken away by the thieves. It may be noted that the certificates of service were to be submitted by the teacher candidate to the University through the Inspector of Schools. In this connection University wrote various letters to the Inspector of Schools to verify if Ramswaroop was actually in service of the 'Dig Vijaya Vidhya Peeth'. On a perusal of these letters it becomes clear that Smt. Vijaya Devi gave evasive replies to the Inspector and, therefore the Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 19th June, 1964 (Ex. A. 4) informed the University authorities that the 'Head Mistress of Dig Vijal school has not produced any record in connection with the enquiry under subject which has led this office to believe that she has nothing to produce to prove the genuineness of the case In another letter of 6th June, 1964 Ex. A Mr. D.C. Chaturvedi Inspector of Schools, Jaipur has said about the conduct of Smt. Vijaya Devi in the following language:
Though her evasive behaviour is enough to support the suspicion in the genuineness of her records, I don't judge it finally and therefore wish to give her one more opportunity, failing which I shall be constrained to judge that every record in the school is doubtful and there is urgent need of withdrawing the recognition of the school and of stopping grant-in-aid.
The evidence further shows that the Head Mistress Smt. Vijaya Devi who was also organiser came before the Inspector with a plea that the theft had been committed in her office. This also appears to be a lame excuse for withholding the record which will go to show that the plea of the plaintiff that be was in whole-time service was nothing but a fraud on the University specially when it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the plaintiff was in permanent service of the State and was serving the police department as A.S.I. in the Rajasthan Police Radio Organisation. There is another letter of the Inspector of Schools addressed to the University which shows that from the record of the Vidhya Peeth it appeared to him that the plaintiff was taken in service in June, 1971. One of the letters addressed by the Inspector to the University brought to the notice of the University that the plaintiff was drawing Rs. 80/- per month as his salary. Acquaintance roll and time table could not be made available to the Inspector of Schools. From this evidence produced on the record by the plaintiff and the defendant the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was a whole time teacher in the Vidhya Peeth when he appeared as a teacher Candida a in B.A. examination and, therefore, in these circumstances the University authorities were within their competence to withdraw the B.A. degree issued to the plaintiff after he was declared successful in the 1962 B.A. examination.
11. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Keshote that the decision of the University is vitiated for not complying with the fundamental principles of the natural justice inasmuch as the plaintiff was not given due opportunity to explain his case before the said decision was taken by the University.
12. I have discussed above certain facts relating to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the University and referred the contents of certain letters that were exchanged between the 'Dig Vijaya Vidhya Peeth' and the University while considering the plaintiff's evidence and I have taken note of this fact that the University initiated the proceedings against the plaintiff in the month of July, 1963 when it came to know that the plaintiff was actually serving with the State Government in the police department First letter issued in this connection was dated 29th July, 1963 to which no reply was sent by the plaintiff
13. The case of the plaintiff is that he had sent a letter to the University on 3rd August, 1963 in reply to the first letter of 29th July, 1963. Copy of this letter hat also been placed on the record as Ex. 4. A perusal of this letter would immediately lead to the conclusion that this was not a letter which could be sent in reply to the letter of the University dated 29th July, 1963 as it finds reference to another communication of 20th March, 1964, sent by the University to the plaintiff It appears that the University after July, 1963 waited for a long time for the reply of the plaintiff but in the mean-while it made enquiry to find out if the plaintiff was really in service of the Vidhya Peeth. It is clear that the replies received from the Inspector of Schools convinced the University that the plaintiff committed a fraud on the University by representing to it that he was a whole time teacher in the Vidhya Peeth. In such circumstances it is too much for the plaintiff to expect that the University should have waited Indefinitely for the reply of the plaintiff. Another notice was given to the plaintiff by the University on 20th March, 1964 wherein it was made very clear that the Senate will consider the plaintiff's case in its meeting to be held on 30th March and, therefore, the plaintiff should submit his reply by 25th of March, According to the case set up by the plaintiff he did not not send the reply to the letter of 20th March before 14th April, 1964 as the plaintiff says that he had received that notice on 30th March. This plea of the late delivery of the notice cannot be believed. The oral testimony of the plaintiff alone is not sufficient to show that the plaintiff did not get the notice of 20th March 1964 before 30th March. Even if it is believed that the plaintiff received the notice of 20th March he should have rushed to the University asking the Senate to postpone cue consideration of the item on the agenda concerning the withdrawal of his B.A. degree & sought opportunity to place his case before the Senate but he did not do so. On the contrary he proceeded leisurely and wrote back to the University on 14th April, 1964 perhaps under the impression that the University will not proceed till it received the reply from the plaintiff. Even therefore it becomes very clear that the University was keen to offer another opportunity to the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff was actually in service of Vidhya Peeth. But the plaintiff could not satisfy the Vice-Chancellor or the Deputy Registrar before whom he appeared and could not comply with the requirements of the letter issued by the Deputy Registrar on and May, 1965. In these circumstances I am left with no alternative but to hold that inspite of the opportunity haying been given to the plaintiff he did not avail of that opportunely to satisfy the University authorities that he was a bonafide teacher candidate.
14. It was urged by Mr. Keshote that his appeal may be allowed on the ground of the failure on the part of the University to comply with the fundamental rule of natural justice and direction be issued to the University to make further enquiry in the matter after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to associate himself with such enquiry. In view of the fact that issue was framed in the suit whether the plaintiff was actually in service of the 'Dig Vijay Vidhya Peeth' and the plaintiff led evidence but failed to establish his claim under that issue, it would be futile to send back the matter to the University for the reconsideration of the question as there is a definite finding of the court below with which I agree that the plaintiff acted in a fraudulent manner to seek admission to the B.A. examination of the University held in 1962.
15. In this view of the matter the appeal of the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. It may also be mentioned that learned Counsel for the appellant did not address this Court on any other issue concerning the damages claimed by the plaintiff appellant.