- (1.) THIS petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Satwant Singh Grewal. The petitioner's case is that he ap peared in the High School Examination con ducted by the Board of High School and In termediate Education, Allahabad in 1971 as a regular candidate, his roll number being 228928. The result was declared in luly 1971 but the petitioner's result was withheld. The result of one Syed Istifa Ali, who had also appeared in this examination from the same centre with roll No. 228934 was similarly withheld. In October, 1971 the petitioner re ceived a communication from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, op posite party No. 1, requiring him to be pre sent at the College on a fixed date and time to face an enquiry in connection with the
(2.) THE opposite parties in their counter-affidavit deny that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice and averred that the petitioner had committed spelling mistakes in respect of 'labour' which was written as lavour, 'throughout' which was written as 'thro out', he had written 'ridding' for 'riding' and 'growled' for 'grown.' Identical mistakes were noticed in answer to question No. 1 of the aforesaid paper in the answer book of Syed Istifa Ali whose roll number was 228934. The Examinations Com mittee had appointed a Sub-Committee for holding an enquiry and the Examinations Committee after giving opportunity to the petitioner to answer the questionnaire came to the conclusion that these two candidates had made use of unfair means from common source. I have heard arguments of Sri A. Mannan and Sri K. S. Varma, Chief Standing Counsel. Following submissions were made by the petitioner's counsel in arguments: 1. There was breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as: (a) the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee; (b) he was not provided with reasonable time to answer the questionnaire; (c) no show cause notice before taking final decision was communicated to him; and 2. The finding of the Enquiry Sub-Committee was not based on any evidence as no adverse conclusion about the use of unfair means could be reached on the solitary cir cumstance that there were identical spelling mistakes in the answer books of the peti tioner and Syed Istifa Ali.
(3.) I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument that the princi ples of natural justice were not complied. There was no rule under which he was en titled to receive a copy of the report of the Enquiry Sub-Committee or a show cause notice after the finding of the Enquiry Sub-Committee. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Triambak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (AIR 1973 All 1 (FB)) that there was no viola tion of the principles of natural justice when the report of the spot enquiry committee was not given to the petitioner and the Examina tions Committee used the material without dis closing it to him. The principles of natural justice do not require furnishing of a copy of the report to the candidate (see Suresh Koshy v University of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 198 and Suresh Kumar v. Punjab University, AIR 1966 Punj 152). It was also observed in this Full Bench case that the rules of natural jus tice do not require, as do the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, the giving of an opportunity to show cause against the pro posed punishment; they merely require the affording of an opportunity to explain or meet the' charges or allegations levelled against the person concerned. This requirement was satis fied in the present case because the petitioner was informed of the substance of the charges levelled against him and given an opportunity to meet them. There is no provision under which the petitioner could object to the fact that the answer to the questionnaire was de manded from him forthwith and not after a lapse of some time.;