Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13/18.5.2016 issued by the Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad cancelling his examination and further debarring him for five years from appearing in any competitive examination held by the U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. The brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement calling applications for various posts under a Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 2013. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner made an application. He appeared in the preliminary written examination and qualified the same. Thereafter, in the written examination he appeared on 21.12.2014 but by an inadvertent mistake after the examination he carried the answer script also alongwith other papers. When realized this mistake, he immediately rushed to the examination centre to submit his answer script but he was informed that Principal of the Centre has gone to lodge a First Information Report to the police station. Thereupon, the petitioner rushed to the police station and submitted the answer script.

3. It is submitted that pursuant to the First Information Report, an investigation was conducted by the police and it was found that no offence is made out and the police submitted a final report which was accepted by the competent Court. A copy of the said order is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition.

4. A short counter-affidavit has been filed. The stand taken by the Commission is that in Item No. 10 of the instructions it is provided that “submit the answer-script with the invigilator before leaving the examination hall”. It is also mentioned in paragraph-7 of the admit card that “candidate should submit his answer-script with the room-invigilator after completing the question paper”. No other submission has been made.

5. I have heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commission does not have any power to debar the petitioner for five years which has very serious disproportion. It is submitted that in absence of any such power the order passed by the Commission debarring the petitioner for the next three years is without any jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal.

7. He further submits that the instructions, mentioned above, only state that a candidate is obliged to submit his answer-script after the examination. The instructions do not provide that in the event of violation of such provision any penal action will follow hence the said instruction is directory in nature and it does not empower the Commission to impose punishment of debarring a candidate for five years.

8. Lastly, he urged that the police in its investigation have found that no case is of criminal nature is made out and the Commission itself has not conducted any enquiry against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench in the case of Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 344 and Arvind Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 697.

10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. In the case of Ajit Kumar Singh (supra) a candidate appeared in Civil Services Examination, 2009 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. While scrutinizing his application it was found that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding his previous attempts. The petitioner has made eight attempts whereas in the application form he had shown it seventh only. According to the Rules if he had disclosed the correct number of previous attempts, he would not be eligible for appearing in the concerned examination hence it was found that he is not guilty of suppression of fact but tried to