WPs 828/11, 826/11, 833/11, 834/11, 835/11, 848/11, 849/11 & 827/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITIONS NOS.828/2011, 826/2011, 833/2011, 834/2011, 835/2011, 848/2011, 849/2011 and 827/2011 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri C.V. Thombre, Advocate for petitioners. Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 24.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. All the petitioners are similarly placed. The facts and the prayers made in these writ petitions are also similar and hence they were heard together. The petitioners have impugned the punishment imposed on them debarring up to September, 2011 and cancelling the performance of examination conducted in the month of September, 2010, of all the papers. The petitioners, who desire to become WPs 828/11, 826/11, 833/11, 834/11, 835/11, 848/11, 849/11 & 827/11 2 teachers, were found indulging in mal- practice. They were caught by Flying Squad of the respondents in the examination hall with copying material. The respondents, after following the due procedure viz. conducting the inquiry and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, debarred them up to September, 2011 and cancelled their performance of examination conducted in September, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the show cause notices dated 30.10.2010 (Exhibit B to the writ petitions) were not served on them before the date of inquiry. He submitted that they received the show cause notices through college after the inquiry was conducted on 11.11.2010. He then submitted that there is no reasoned order passed by the respondents and, therefore, the decision is not sustainable in law. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Swapna WPs 828/11, 826/11, 833/11, 834/11, 835/11, 848/11, 849/11 & 827/11 3 Tulsidas Gajare V/s Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Aurangabad (2008 (1) Mh.L.J., 442. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed before us the entire record including the copying material found in possession of the petitioners and the questionnaires filled in by the petitioners in their own hand-writings. We have perused the entire material. It appears that in the examination hall itself, the petitioners in writing admitted that they were found with copying material. The questionnaires that were given to the petitioners in the course of inquiry also show that the show cause notices were served on the petitioners on 9.11.2010. The petitioners have stated so in their hand-writing. The submission so also the statements made in the writ petitions stating that show cause notices were not served on the petitioners, thus, do not appear to be correct and honest. Therefore, the WPs 828/11, 826/11, 833/11, 834/11, 835/11, 848/11, 849/11 & 827/11 4 first ground of challenge that the show cause notices were not served on the petitioners is devoid of any merits and deserves to be rejected outright. Insofar as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents ought to have passed reasoned order also in our opinion is without any substance. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this contention, in our opinion, would not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, it appears that the Inquiry Officer held the petitioners not guilty of mal-practice and Standing Committee disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and in the light of these facts, it was held that the reasons ought to have been recorded by the Standing Committee for not agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Committee. Insofar as present petitions are concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioners admitted that they were found with copying material, WPs 828/11, 826/11, 833/11, 834/11, 835/11, 848/11, 849/11 & 827/11 5 the detailed reasons were not necessary. It is now well settled that in academic matters, more particularly relating to conduct of examination, it is best left to the discretion of those, who conduct the examinations, to decide the quantum of punishment, in case of those who are found guilty. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the punishment imposed is harsh, also deserves to be rejected. We do not find the punishment disproportionate, deserving interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More over, we also find that the punishment imposed is as per the rules. In the circumstances, all the writ petitions are dismissed. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 24.03.2011 ndk/c243114