IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 83/2010 Decided on:3.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Hem Raj. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. P.S. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was issued Roll No.20060700124 by respondent No.2-Board to enable him to pass course in paper English of Drawing Master held on 25.4.2009. However, as per case of the respondent-Board, petitioner did not appear, but his cousin, namely, Sh. Jitender Singh appeared on his behalf on 25.4.2009. This fact came to the notice of the Deputy 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Superintendent. Mr. Jitender Singh could not answer the queries of the Deputy Superintendent. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Shimla for taking further action in the matter. Statement of the Deputy Superintendent was recorded and the statement of Jitender Singh was also recorded. Petitioner’s statement was also recorded. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Unfair Means Committee. Petitioner was issued letter dated 17.5.2009 to appear before the Unfair Means Committee. He was asked to appear before the Unfair Means Committee on 9.6.2009. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he could not appear before the Committee since he received the letter on 9.6.2009 only. He visited the office of the Board on 11.6.2009 and thereafter sent a letter on 12.6.2009 to give him one more opportunity to appear before the Unfair Means Committee. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner was disqualified for a period of five years by the Unfair Means Committee on 9.6.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner also entered into correspondence with the respondent-Board on 24.6.2009. It will be also pertinent to state at this stage that F.I.R. No. 66 of 2009 was also registered against 3 the petitioner and his cousin for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh University, Board and other Examination Malpractices Act, 1984. Petitioner has admitted his guilt as per Annexure R- 2/C. His cousin has also admitted his guilt as per Annexure R-2/B. 2. Mr. P.S. Negi has submitted that his client may be given one more chance to appear before the Unfair Means Committee. 3. Mr. Arvind Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has brought to the notice of the Court that order dated 15.6.2009 was appealable before the Chairman of the respondent-Board within a period of one month after the imposition of penalty. Petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the order dated 15.6.2009. He ought to have filed an appeal against the order dated 15.6.2009. 4. However, in the interest of justice petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent-Board against the order dated 15.6.2009 within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent-Board shall hear and decide the appeal within a period of four weeks. The 4 Chairman shall decide the appeal on its own merit uninfluenced by the delay and laches. He shall pass a speaking order. 5. In view of above position, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3.8.2011 *awasthi*