- (1.) The order dated July 22, 1975, of the Standing Committee of the Board of School Education, Haryana, holding the petitioner guilty of having used unfair means in the Matriculation examination of the respondent-Board held in March, 1975, and disqualifying him under regulation 13(b) (pages 113 and 114 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1969, Volume I, page 110 of the same Calendar for 1970) for a period of two years, that is for 1975 and 1976, has been impugned by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On service of the notices of motion on the respondents, they have filed their written statement, and also produced for our perusal the original answer-books of the petitioner (Roll No. 233410) and of the other candidate (Roll No. 233411) both of whom have been disqualified by the same order. In the course of the motion hearing an adjournment was taken by the respondents on February 4, 1976, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was being reconsidered. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, has informed us today that as a result of the reconsideration finding of guilt against the petitioner in respect of the answer given by him to question No. 2(b) of the paper in question has been set aside after giving the petitioner benefit of doubt by the Chairman of the respondent-Board, but that the order punishing the petitioner for the alleged use of unfair means by him in attempting question No. 2(a) has been maintained.
(2.) We have seen the answer-books of the two candidates. The petitioner got 27 marks and the other candidate got 18 marks in the paper in question. The marks obtained by the other candidate in question Nos. 5 and 6 are zero in each case. There are no doubt two common mistakes in the answer given by the two candidates to question No. 2(a), but the wording and phraseology of the whole of the answer (particularly the words used between the two sets of mistaken words used by them) are not identical. It is the common case of both sides that the other candidate was sitting behind the petitioner at the time of taking the examination. The charge which the petitioner was called upon to answer in the notice Annexure P-1 served on him was that he was suspected of having indulged in copying either from a common source or from the answer-book of some other candidate. Counsel now says that under regulation 13(b) the same punishment can be inflicted on a candidate who either copies from a common source or from the answer book of some other candidate or allows some other candidate to copy from him. The petitioner was never asked to show-cause against any charge of his having allowed the other candidate to copy from him. He has had no opportunity to meet any such charge. In question No. 4 put to him at the time of his oral examination, he was asked about the charge framed against him which had been conveyed to him in the call-notice. He denied that charge. Even at that stage it was not put to him that he had allowed the other candidate to copy from him. He had categorically stated in reply to question No. 8 put to him that he had not copied and he was not at fault.
(3.) The operative part of the impugned order wherein the final findings have been recorded is in the following words :- "In view of the detailed study of the answer-books of the candidates (the petitioner and the other candidate referred to above), their basic knowledge and supported by the documentary evidence (mistakes marked in the answer-books) available in the answer-books of these candidates the Committee feels convinced that the following candidates have violated the provision of regulation 13(b) given at page 113-114 of the P.U. Calendar, 1969, (Volume I), and as such decided to disqualify them under this relation for giving and taking help or receiving help from a common source and disqualified them for a period of two years, i.e., 1975 and 1976, under the said regulation :- "Roll Nos. 233410, 233411." It is noteworthy that though, as already stated, no charge was given to the petitioner for giving help to anyone in the notice served on him and no question was put to him about his ever having given help to anyone, he has been punished for having possibly given help to someone else. The finding is also in the alternative and covers all possible cases covered by regulation 13(b). There are two bases for finding the petitioner guilty, namely (i) his basic-knowledge and (ii) the mistakes marked in the answer-books. We have already referred to the mistakes. The basic knowledge of the two candidates shows lot of difference between them. It is the answer-book of the other candidates which shows the lesser knowledge. It is not for us to decide in these proceedings whether the other candidate is or is not guilty, but we must say that as a result of the comparison of the original answer-books we are convinced that if there has been any copying between the two candidates inter se, the possibility of the other candidate having copied some parts of the answer to question No. 2(a) from the petitioner's answer book may not be excluded, but it is impossible to say that the petitioner copied from the other candidate. No charge of his having allowed the other candidate to copy from him having ever been levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be punished for the same. (We have returned the answer-books and the question-paper to the counsel for the respondent). The principles on which such inquires are to be held and punishments are to be awarded have been authoritatively laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others, 1962 AIR(SC) 1110. The punishment awarded to the petitioner in the present case does not, in our opinion, accord with the procedure suggested by their Lordships in that case. No opportunity at all was given to the petitioner for answering the only possible charge on which he could have conceivably been found to be guilty. For the foregoing reasons we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order Annexure P-5. S.P. Goyal, J. - I agree. Petition allowed.;