D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 411/88 (Omshankar Chanderi and others v. Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Board, through its Secretary and another ).

( 2 ) THE petitioners who are students of Govt. Polytechnic, Harda, being an institution under the Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education, Bhopal, have all been rusticated and debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted by the Board, by way of disciplinary action against them for their disorderly behaviour in the examination hall. All the petitioners have a common grievance that disciplinary action of debarring them from the examination, by way of punishment, has been taken against them by the Principal of the Institution and by the Board of Technical Education, without affording them any opportunity to show cause against the penal action.

( 3 ) THE petitioner Ratiram Singh Yadav in M. P. No. 271/88 has come forward with a specific grievance that he never appeared in the supplementary examination held in Sept.-Oct. 1987, because he had already passed the examination in April-May, 1987. He also denied that he ever misbehaved during the examination of final year held in Sept.-Oct. 1987. The order dated 23-12-1987 (Annexure-E), debarring him from appearing in the examination of the Board for a period of three years and cancellation of his admission from the Institution for the aforesaid period has been challenged on the grounds that it was a punishment inflicted on him without any justification and without giving him any opportunity of hearing or show cause.

( 4 ) THE petitioners, eight in number, in M. P. No. 411/88 have similarly challenged the impugned orders (Annexures-P-1 to P-8), whereby they have been debarred from appearing in the examinations of Board for a period of two years and rusticated from the institution for the said period. These petitioners admit that they had appeared in the examination held in Sept.-Oct. 1987, but they denied to have either misbehaved or adopted any unfair means in the examination. Their grievance is also same that the disciplinary action was taken against them without giving them any opportunity of hearing or showing cause. Separate returns have been filed in both the cases jointly by the Principal of the Institution and the Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Technical Board (for brevity referred to as the 'board' ). Shri P. C. Naik, Dy. A. G. , appearing for the respondents has stated that the examinations conducted by the Board are regulated by Examination Rules and separate rules have been framed to deal with cases of unfair means in relation to the examinations conducted by the Board. A copy of the Rules for punishment as approved by the Executive. Council of the Board for dealing with use of unfair means in the examination was supplied to us, under which the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioners and the punishment was imposed of debarring them for three years and two years respectively in M. P. No. 271/88 and 411/88. ( 5 ) EXPLAINING the highly objectionable conduct of petitioner Ratiram Singh Yadav, the respondents have narrated the incident in their returns in paragraphs 3 to 8, as reproduced below:-"3. That on 18-9-1987 the paper for Mathematics II of First Year started at 8. 0 a. m. That at about 10. 00 a. m. the petitioner with Dinesh Thapak went upstairs where the examination was in progress but he was sent back by Shri N. P. Patil, lecturer. That while returning back A. G. Deo, Head of the Department enquired the petitioner and Dinesh Thapak about their entry towards examination hall. The petitioner replied that he had some work with Shri Mukesh Bhadoria and requested Shri Deo to send Mukesh Bhadoria. Shri Deo informed Shri Bhadoria that the petitioner and Dinesh Thapak want to meet him for some important work if he likes he may go after handing over the answer-book. 4. Shri Bhadoria went to meet the friends after handing-over t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document