IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 31895 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.ALLAN THOMAS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENDION, COLLEGE OF AGRICUTLURE, PADNAKKAD P.O. KASARAGOD 671322. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: --------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 31895 OF 2008 (V) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner appeared for the Accounts Test for Executive Officers Part I and II in the examinations that were held on 4/7/2007 and 5/7/2007. The candidates were permitted to refer to the books and write the exam. When the result was declared in October 2007, his name was not included and thereupon the petitioner applied for recheck of his answer papers when he was informed by Ext.P2 that he had failed in the examination. Subsequently, he was issued Ext.P3 show cause notice, where it was alleged that in the examination, he had referred to the books in which the answers were pasted and that such a finding has been arrived at by the inspection squad in their report. Reply given by the petitioner is Ext.P4. In this reply, all that the petitioner said was that the answer book that he referred was an old one and he has not in specific terms denied the allegations in Ext.P3 show cause notice. Considering the reply, the PSC issued Ext.P5 debarring the petitioner for two years and it is this order that is under challenge. 2. As already noticed specific allegations of misconducts are made in Ext.P3 show cause notice. On receipt of the show cause notice WPC 31895/08 :2 : reply has been given by the petitioner where he does not deny the allegations against him. In the light of the evasive reply that was given by the petitioner, the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty cannot be faulted and the debarring that has ordered in Ext.P5 also cannot be faulted. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations are untrue and that no enquiry has been held. In my view, the correctness of this submission need only be decided in the context of the reply that has been given by the petitioner to the show cause notice. As already noticed, in the reply apart from stating that the book referred by him was an old one, the allegations against him remains controverted. If that be so, on the terms of Ext.P4, the submission made cannot be accepted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp