S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.)The petitioner who had appeared at 12th Standard (Science Stream) examination held by the respondent Board from 2 1982 from Jamnagar centre has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order of penalty passed against him by the respondent Board on 7-3-1983 which is at annexure C to the petition pursuant to which the result of his examination for November 1982 has been cancelled and he has been prohibited from appearing in Std. 12th examination upto April 1984.
(2.)In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The petitioner had appeared at 12 Std. examination through Sharda Mandir School at Jamnagar. His seat number was B 02285. He had appeared in all science group paperS from 2 1982 to 9-11-1982. The result of the examination was declared on 30-12-1982. However so far as the petitioner was concerned his result was not declared and was kept reserved. The respondent board gave a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 10-1-1983. It was given in a printed form which contained allegations that when the petitioner had appeared in the paper of Physics on 5-11-1982 he was found to have committed certain misconduct at the said examination. Details of the misconduct given in the show cause notice were that it was brought out that some of the answers to the questions were copied by the petitioner verbatim from some other student meaning thereby from the answer book of some other student. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice at annexure A by his written reply dated 21-1-1983 annexure B to the petition. He denied the charge levelled against him. It appears that thereafter personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner during which he stood by his case of not having committed any misconduct. It is thereafter that the order at annexure C came to be passed against him on 7-3-1983. The petitioner has therefore approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for getting suitable relief from this court.
(3.)Mr. J R. Nanavati learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the petition :
1. That the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is vague and misleading and consequently all subsequent proceedings are null and void.

2. The inquiry in question was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice. That the evidence collected by the Board behind the back of the petitioner was not shown to the petitioner nor was he given any opportunity to explain the same and hence the inquiry is vitiated and is null and void.

3. That the impugned order is based on no legal evidence and is totally perverse as it is impossible to believe that the petitioner would copy from the answer book of the candidate having seat No. B 02291 when the petitioners seat number was B-02285 which would be far away from the place where other candidate was sitting in the class room at the time of the examination.

4.The impugned order is not a reasoned order. Hence also it is liable to be quashed and set aside.