1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.670 OF 2009 Ansari Abedabano Mohammad Salim ... Appellants VERSUS Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education,and others ... Respondents ... Mr.Amol S.Sawant,Advocate for appellants Mr. S.G.Sangale,Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 12th OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge -1 Dhule, in Civil Appeal No.68 of 2006, which arose from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,Dhule. 3. The issue between the parties was,as follows: 1. Whether the appellant appeared for board examination of 12th Standard in March 1998, inspite of declaring the result, the respondent-board informed her that her performance was cancelled and she was debarred from appearing for examination for one year? 2 The appellant challenges this decision by filing civil Suit and during pendency of the said suit, the respondent agreed to hold inquiry under Rule 5 and 6 of the Guidelines, for procedure and inquiry of such nature. The Board then sent notice to the appellant setting out the charges against her and directing her to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 30th March 1999. It is an admitted fact that the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer. On that day. In her own handwriting she made a statement in writing. Mainly, on the basis of this statement the Enquiry Officer held that the appellant had indulged in malpractice and was liable for being debarred for two years. 4. This decision of the Enquiry Officer was further challenged in the present suit. The Trial Court held in favour of the appellant holding that the Enquiry Officer did not properly conducted inquiry. But the Lower appellate Court held against the appellant. It was held that Inquiry was properly done. Only question that could be raised in such suit is, ‘whether inquiry was properly held, principle of natural justice were properly observed etc.’? In Inquiry of this nature, the Enquiry Officer is expected to take decision on subject to satisfaction, and his decision unless it is grossly perverse can not be 3 challenged. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to submit that the appellant was denied liberty of being heard. He also asserted that, the notice set out and charges levelled against the appellant was not served on her. The facts narrated above clearly establish that not only notice under Rule 5 was given to the appellant, but she was even heard on the charges. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and appeal does not give rise any substantial question of law. Thus, the appeal should fail, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) MTK./SA.670.09 ok