TEJSINGH ARVIND DESHMUKH Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the punishment meted out to him by the respondent Board of cancelling his March 1989 examination and debarring him from appearing for two examinations upto March, 1990.

(2.) The petitioner was a student of Shivaji Science College, Nagpur for his Higher Secondary course. He appeared for the XII standard examination of the respondent Board in March 1989. His result was declared on 15-6-1989. He passed the said examination with 439/600 marks. However, a show cause notice dated 19-6-1989 was given to him by the Board in which he was levelled with a charge that in respect of the papers in Chemistry II, Biology I, Biology II and Mathematics I and II, he had brought pressure and/or influence upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing his marks in the above papers. By the said show cause notice he was asked to submit his explanation on or before 28-6-1989 and was also asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 1st July 1989. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the aforesaid charge against him. He also went to the office of the Board on 1-7-1989, on which date his statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In his aforesaid statement also, he denied the charge against him. According to the petitioner, nobody else was examined in his presence on 1-7-1989. However, it appears that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the valuers, the moderators and the Chief Moderator in the above papers and the custodian also. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Board on the basis of which the respondent Board by its order dated 24-7-1989 cancelled the result of the petitioner to the March 1989 examination by cancelling his examination itself and further debarred him from appearing for the examinations of the Board till March 1990. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that there is breach of the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry against the petitioner. According to him, he was not given an opportunity to meet any material used against him by the Enquiry Officer because no such material on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer was shown to him. He has also urged that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine any valuer, moderator, Chief Moderator or the custodian whose statements were recorded by the Enquuy Officer. Apart from the complaint of breach of the principles of natural justice, it is further urged that even on the material available before the Enquiry Officer in the instant case the charge levelled against the petitioner about bringing pressure and/or influence upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing his marks in the above papers cannot be held to be proved. In fact, the submission is that there is no material at all before the Enquiry Officer to connect him with any irregularities in valuation of his papers even assuming that such irregularities have taken place. The learned counsel for the Board has in support of his submission that the punishment meted out to the petitioner was justified, has brought to our notice the relevant answer papers and the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the statements recorded by him.