- (1.) H. N. Seth, J. The petitioner Triyambakpati Tripathi was a candidate for the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , (hereinafter referred to as the Board) held in the year 1971. He appeared in that examination as a regular student of Belpur Higher Secondary School from the Higher Secondary School Kempiarganj Centre. On receipt of a complaint that there was mass copying at that Centre, the examiners con cerned were alerted and were required to evaluate the answer books carefully and to report if there was any indication of use of unfair means by the- candidates appearing at that Centre. The examiner of Science Second Paper reported that he suspected use of unfair means by a number of candidates in answering question No. 2 of that paper. The report of the examiner was endorsed also by the Head Examiner concerned. Thereupon the Examinations Committee of the Board got the answer books of the candidates ap pearing at that centre examined by a screen ing committee consisting of experts in the subject. Members of the screening Com mittee examined the answer books of various candidates and reported that the petitioner along with other candidates was suspected to have used unfair means in answering not only question No. 2 of the Science Second paper but also in answering question No. 1 of the Science 1st paper. The Examinations Committee then withheld the result of the petitioner and other candidates suspected of using unfair means and resolved that an 'on the spot Enquiry Sub-Committee' be set up to enquire into the matter in detail and to submit its report before the Examinations Committee. It also framed charge-sheets mentioning the material which indicated the use of unfair means by the petitioner and other candidates. Copies of the two charge sheets given to the petitioner have been filed as annexures 'a' and 'b' to the counteu affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board. These charge-sheets further required the petitioner -and others to explain why pro ceedings under Rule 2 (1) of Chapter VI of the Board's calendar be not taken against them.
(2.) THE spot Enquiry Sub-Committee visited petitioner's centre on 28th August, 1971 and handed over the two charge-sheets prepared by the Examinations Committee to him. Members of the Spot Enquiry Com mittee explained the allegations to the peti tioner and showed him the answer books of other candidates about which refer ence had been made in one of the charge-sheets. THE petitioner gave his ex planation in respect of the allegations in the charge-sheets and then subscribed his signa tures to a declaration that he had given his explanation voluntarily and after fully under standing the matter, that the relevant answer books had been shown to him and that he had nothing further to say in the matter. THE Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee submitted its report to the Examinations Committee which after examining the answer books, the charge sheets of the candidate, the explanation given by him and the report of the Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee resolved, vide its resolution No. 178 dated October 6, 1971, that the High School Examination result of the petitioner for the year 1971 be cancelled and he be also debarred from the Board's Examination for the year 1972. THE resolution passed by the Examinations Committee was duly ap proved by the Chairman of the Board. This decision was communicated to the petitioner through the principal of the Institution con cerned. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court contending that there was no material before the examinations com mittee for finding him guilty of having used unfair means at the examination and that its decision was based merely on surmises and conjectures. He pleaded that the proce dure adopted by the Examinations Committee and the Sub- Committee for punishing the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice and as such the order passed by the Examinations Committee canceling his exa mination and debarring him from appearing at the Board's 1972 Examination deserved to be quashed. He also complained that in the matter of punishment he has been improperly discriminated as against one other candidate, Viz. , Jai Ram Pandey, a student of the same institution who was caught red handed using unfair means. In his case the Examinations Committee merely cancelled his 1971 exami nation. When this petition was taken up for preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner -relied on certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , 1971 All LJ 1391, in support of his contention that it was incumbent upon the Examinations Committee to itself afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard both in regard to the conclusions recorded by the Sub-Conunittee as also the punishment pro posed to be awarded and that if this was not done the principles of natural justice were Violated and the order punishing the peti tioner deserved to be quashed. The Bench hearing the petition felt that these observa tions made in Prabhat Kumar's case requir ed reconsideration and therefore referred the case for decision by a Full Bench. This is how the case has come up for decision be fore us.
(3.) IN the case of Board of High School and INtermediate Education, U. P. V. Ghanshiam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 it has been held that the Examinations Com mittee while dealing with the cases of exami nees using unfair means in examination half acts quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings be fore it. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee Violated the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in this case the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee violated the principles of natural justice inasmuch as- (1) the Examinations Committee obtained the explanation of the petitioner through a sub-committee appointed by it instead of it self requiring the petitioner to explain the allegations made against him. (2) While considering the case against the petitioner, the examinations committee took into consideration the report made by the Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee without bringing it to his notice and without afford ing him an opportunity to explain it (3) The Spot-Enquiry Subcommittee did not afford adequate opportunity to the peti tioner to explain his case and he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment;