One month after his foot rule was confiscated during an LLB examination, the Reforms Committee of Gujarat University on Sunday found IPS officer Rajnish Rai guilty of using 'unfair means'. He has been declared 'failed' in all subjects for the academic year 2007-2008.

The verdict that came within an hour after Rai met the committee in the afternoon is expected to raise many eyebrows with the IPS officer claiming he has not been informed about it.

"I have come to know of the verdict through the media. There has been no official communication of any kind from the university regarding this," Rai said, who was asked by the committee to appear before it today.

He said, "I asked the committee for an adjournment as I still have to receive the documents connected with the case from the university to file a reply. The committee told me that I would be informed about the next date over the telephone and now I hear that the verdict has been pronounced."

When asked about his future course of action, Rai said, "I can't say anything now. Let me get the copy of the verdict first."

J J Patel, a committee member, said Rai was found guilty on the basis of the university rule that stipulates that writing of any kind on a foot rule is prohibited. The offence is punishable by a F+0 sentence, which means that Rai has been failed in all subjects for 2007-08 examination, but can take the exam next year.

The IPS officer had admitted that his foot rule had been scribbled upon by his four-year-old son and it was not related with the law examination.

The decision came even as Rai had filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court, seeking the necessary documents related to the case. Rai, a DIG in the State Crime Records Bureau, Gandhinagar was instrumental in the arrest of suspended IPS officers D G Vanzara and Rajkumar Pandian in connection with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

Interestingly, the foot rule in question has allegedly been destroyed, as it is neither with the exam supervisor nor the principal of Siddharth Law College, the examination centre.

M N Patel, one of the members of the Committee, said, "It is true that the foot rule could not be found. We have taken note of this and have recommended that the executive committee take an appropriate action against the supervisor of the examination."