The principle of natural justice must be followed scrupulously in quasi-judicial proceedings, even though it may not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary courts of law.

Judgement

G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- The petitioner is the Principal of Gopabandhu Ayurvedic College at Puri. The Orissa Association of Sanskrit learning and Culture represented by its Secretary, is the opposite party. The opposite party was constituted by Resolution No. 2835-E of the Government of Orissa in the Education Department, on 7-10-1939. One of its functions is to conduct examinations for testing candidates for different diplomas in Sanskrit. The petitioner was a candidate for the second part of the Sahityacharya Examination of 1964 and was assigned Roll No. 14. In the second paper Sri Jagannath Mohapatra Sharma had been appointed as the Examiner. Sri Braja Mohan Padhy Assistant Secretary of the opposite party, sent information on 10-7-1964 to the Superintendent of the Centre that, on 9-7-1964, the petitioner went to the former's residence and induced him to attach some fresh sheets of written papers inside the petitioner's answer book and that as a result of such pressure Sri Braja Mohan Padhy permitted additional sheets of papers to be kept inside the petitioner's answer book. Sri Raghunath Misra, M. L. A., who is a Member of the Orissa Council of Sanskrit Learning and Culture was appointed the Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the matter. He examined Sri Padhy, Sri Jagannath Mohapatra Sharma, and Sri Ladukeswar Satapathy, Secretary of the opposite party, and also the petitioner. Written explanations were taken from those persons.

The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report to the opposite party on 2-9-1964 wherein he held that the petitioner had no responsibility for introducing the additional sheets of papers into the answer book and that some interested persons brought about the mischief. He further held that Braja Mohan Padhy was incompetent to be in charge of examinations. On 20-4-1965 the petitioner received notice from the opposite party asking him to show cause as to why he introduced 4 sheets of additional papers in the answer book. The petitioner showed cause on 1-5-1965 and denied the charge that he adopted unfair means. The petitioner asked for a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and other papers and documents which the enquiry officer had collected from various sources in order to present a fuller explanation. He also indicated therein that after those documents were received by him he would give a detailed explanation and prayed for an adequate opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him. The documents asked for were not supplied, nor was any opportunity given to him to cross-examine the witnesses examined by opposite party and to adduce evidence in his defence. On 24-5-1965 the petitioner was intimated by Annexure 'D' that the result of the Examination held in 1964 was cancelled and that he would not be permitted to sit at any examination before 1967. This order was passed in pursuance of the decision taken by Opposite Party by Resolution 15-2-1965.

The petitioner's case is that Kaviraj Sri Ananta Tripathy Sharma who is a member of the Orissa Association of Sanskrit Learning and Culture bore personal animosity towards him and the entire manoeuvre was done at his instance. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Resolution, communicated to the petitioner on 24-5-1965 and for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party to publish the result of the examination held in 1964.

2. A counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite party by its Secretary Sri Ladukeswar Satapathy who is a Government servant of Sanskrit Studies. The allegation of mala fides made against Sri Ananta Tripathy Sharma is disputed. Most of the other facts in the writ petition are not challenged. In paragraphs 8 and 9 the factual position has been clarified. It appears that Sri Ananta Tripathy Sharma received an anonymous application that malpractice had been resorted to in the examination. A resolution was accordingl