1 W.P.NO.1961/2011. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1961 of 2011. Shri Milind R.Punje ..vs.. State of Mah. and others. =-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. N.Bhishikar Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. G.V.Patil Adv. for respondent no.2. C ORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent no.2. The writ petition is directed against the impugned order of punishment dated 3.3.2011 issued by the respondent/Board whereby the petitioner is held guilty of using unfair means in Winter 2010 examination of Civil Engineering (4th Semester) and was prohibited from appearing in the Summer 2011 examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Committee and also given in writing that the petitioner was innocent, however, the Enquiry Committee did not take into consideration all these aspects and passed the impugned order which is, therefore, not sustainable in law. Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the 2 W.P.NO.1961/2011. other hand, has submitted that the Principal, Government Polytechnic (Gadchiroli) issued notice of enquiry coupled with the charge sheet to the petitioner and others dated 2/2/2011. The proceedings of the enquiry were scheduled on 4/2/2011. The petitioner appeared on 4/2/2011. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The Enquiry was completed as per rules and it was found that the petitioner indulged in unfair means in Winter 2010 examination and therefore was given punishment accordingly. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. In the instant case the petitioner has not mentioned anything to show that he had adduced any evidence nor placed any documentary evidence before the Committee in the enquiry proceedings, except informing the Committee in writing that he did not commit any malpractice. Whereas the affidavit filed by the respondent/Board clearly demonstrates that the regular enquiry as per rules was held against the petitioner and others and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the charge/s. No case is made out for showing indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3 W.P.NO.1961/2011.