SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 3 -6 -1991 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) whereby the charge of malpractice adopted by the petitioner at the examination held by the respondent has been found to be established and to such effect the result has been cancelled, the petitioner has been debarred from appearing at the examination up to 31 -5 -1994 and the respondent has decided to report the name of the petitioner to his employer Bank. It has been further prayed that the said impugned order may not be given effect to.
(2.) THE petitioner is an employee of Punjab National Bank and at the relevant time he was working in Modi Nagar, U.P. He appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent known as CA II -B Part I examination held in April/May, 1989 at the Meerut centre. It is alleged that he passed in four papers but he failed in the paper of book keeping. The petitioner alleges that he again appeared in the paper of book keeping in December, 1989 but he again failed. In this third attempt in the examination of June, 1990 the result of the petitioner was withheld on the allegation that he had committed malpractice of copying in the previous examination held in April/May, 1989. The allegation of copying was to the effect that the answer to question No. 6 given by the petitioner was similar to the answer of another candidate Sri Kharak Singh. A show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner sent his reply. After considering the said reply, the respondent has passed the impugned order finding the charge to be established. A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that on scrutiny of answer paper of the petitioner and the said Sri Kharak Singh in the subject of book keeping it was found that the answer to question No. 6 consisted of common mistake. It has been stated that final decision was taken after giving opportunity to the petitioner and that malpractice committed by the petitioner has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
(3.) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder -affidavit and reiterated his averments made in the writ petition. He has stated that the respondent is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That this Court has territorial jurisdiction in as much as the examination was conducted at Meerut and his result was received by him within the State of U.P. He has denied that the charge made against him is true and has further stated that the respondents have communicated the same to his employer who has issued show -cause notice to him.;