(1) WP 4261.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4261 OF 2011 Pramod S/o Suryabhan Shirke, Age : 21 years, Occu.: Education, R/o Chande (Bu), Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Controller of Examinations, University of Pune, Examination Section, Ganeshkhind, Pune 2. University of Pune, Ganeshkind, Pune Through its Registrar 3. Dr. N.S. Gaikwad, Principal, Dada Patil Mahavidhyalaya Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. (2) WP 4261.2011 2. At the outset, the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw all the allegations made against the respondent no.3. Liberty granted. The allegations made against the respondent no.3 shall stand struck off. 3. The petitioner is restricting only his claim insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned. The petitioner has been imposed penalty of annulment of entire performance of B.C.S. Examination and for exclusion for the University examination for 4 additional examination and fine of ` 500/-. 4. The petitioner is allegedly caught while making an attempt to copy from some other material. The petitioner has made a specific allegation that when the proceedings were initiated against him, he was not supplied with the documents which were sought to be used against him. It is also the case of the petitioner that the enquiry as required under the relevant Ordinance is also not conducted. 5. Be that as it may. We do not find it necessary to go into that aspect, inasmuch as the (3) WP 4261.2011 petitioner has restricted his claim insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned. 6. We find that the quantum of punishment is excessive and dis-proportionate to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner. In any case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has also indulged into such activities at earlier point of time. 7. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow the Petition. The quantum of punishment of annulment of the petitioner's performance in full for B.C.S. examination and for four (4) additional examinations and fine of ` 500/- now stands modified with the punishment of annulment of petitioner's performance only for 2nd B.C.S. examination and exclusion of the petitioner for two (2) additional University examinations and fine of ` 500/-. Needless to state that the petitioner's performance in 1st year B.C.S. Examination shall be valid and the result of the said examination shall be declared. It is not in dispute that the examination commencing from tomorrow, would have been the second (4) WP 4261.2011 additional examination, in which the petitioner could have appeared. The petitioner would be permitted to appear for 2nd year B.C.S. examination, which is likely to be held in March/April, 2012. 8. Rule is thus partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/