AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (3) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. O. Banki District -- Cuttack. It has been reported by the Centre Superintendent of B.K. Bidyapitha, Banki Centre, that you have adopted unfair means at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1971 in respect of Sanskrit -- I paper on 17-3-1971. In this connection, I am directed to say that the following charges have been made against you. (1) While the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1971 was in progress at the above Centre, you were found in possession of a small piece of manuscript paper which you brought into the Examination Hall with evident intention of copying from it/them. You were warned before the commencement of the Examination not to bring any paper other than your Admit Card into the Examination Hall. (2) You were found copying from it/them. (3) You have never followed the instructions printed on the back side of your Admit Card in the Examination at all. (4) x x x (5) x x x (6) You refused to give a written statement and your Admit Card to the Centre Superintendent when you were asked to do so. In case you want a personal hearing in the matter, you are required to inform abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing at any examination prior to the supplementary H.S.C. Examination. 1972 by an order (Annexure 3) dated 21-7-1971 which was communicated to her. Annexure 3 is extracted thus: BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ORISSA, CUTTACK NOTIFICATION No. I No. Exam. (C) - 2365/ Dated 21-7-71 In accordance with Regulation 24 (a) & (c) of Chapter X of the Board's Regulations the following candidates who adopted unfair means at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1971 are penalised as noted against them :- Serial No. Roll No. Name & address of the candidates Name of institution Penalty imposed 1 2 3 4 5 XX XX XX XX XX 130 M-7619 Pramila Dei D/o. Antaryami Rout, At/P. O. Sisua, P. O. Banki, Dist. Cuttack Govt. Girls' High School, Banki Results cancelled and de­barred from appearing at any examination prior to the Supplementary, H. S. C. Examination, 1972. XX XX XX XX XX Sd/- P. C. Roy Secretary. The petitioner's case is that when s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing such enquiry? (iii) What is the extent and content of the adequate opportunity to be given to the examinee at such enquiry? 6. 1911 AC 179, (Board of Education v. Rice), a decision of the House of Lords, is the leading authority on the point. Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn made the following observations at page 182 of the report: "Comparatively recent statutes have extended, if they have not originated, the practice of imposing upon departments or officers of State the duty of deciding or determining questions of various kinds. In the present instance, as in many others, what comes for determination is sometimes a matter to be settled by discretion, involving no law. It will, I suppose, usually be of an administrative kind; but sometimes it will involve matter of law as well as matter of fact or even depend upon matter of law alone. In such cases the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon every one who decides anything. But I do not think they are bound to treat such a question as though ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society, Ltd.) Harman, J. sitting in Chancery Division made the following observation at page 599: "What then, are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First. I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and, thirdly, of course, that the Tribunal should act in good faith, I do not think that there really is anything more". In (1960) 1 All ER 631. University of Ceylon v. Fernando the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed their conclusion at page 641 thus: "Their Lordships are, therefore, satisfied that the interviews, so far as they went, were fairly conducted and gave the plaintiff an adequate opportunity of stating his case. But it remains to consider whether, in the course they took, the interviews must be held to have fallen short of the requirements of natural justice on the ground that the plaintiff was given no opportunity of questioning Miss Balasingham. She was the one essential witness against the plaintiff and the charge in the end resolved itself into a matter of her word against his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are supplied, explanation is obtained and it listens to the parties in good faith. In other words, is it bound to follow any other requirements besides the aforesaid three elements? Clearly the enquiry is not in the nature of oath unless there is a codified rule to that effect. It need not examine any witness. It can obtain information in any way it thinks best; but if the information is so obtained the examinee must be given fair opportunity of correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to his views. It follows as a necessary corollary that if the examinee wants any material to be produced or to cross-examine any witness, then the authority must make those materials or witness available. The authority has, however, no duty to suo motu examine oral evidence or give opportunity for cross-examination. If the delinquent as a part of his defence demands that witnesses reporting against him are to be cross-examined by him refusal thereof would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. It is also to be further remembered that in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution over the decision of the educational authority the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... para. 11 their Lordships stated thus: "It is well settled that it is the bounden duty of all quasi-judicial tribunals to place all matters which swayed their judgment for the explanation of the delinquents before they can be penalised". On the analysis indicated by us this observation is too widely stated. The prosecutor is not bound to place all materials in the enquiry. If the delinquent does not call for any such material he cannot subsequently complain that such material could not have been used against him. Similarly there is an observation in paragraph 13 which runs thus: "The omission in the charge to specify the other candidates from whom these petitioners are said to have copied or the proved facts from which inference of copying has been drawn, has caused such vagueness in the charge that the petitioners have suffered from serious prejudice thereby as they have been driven to a roving defence visualising all manner and possibilities of copying and to present their defence against every such possibility". As has already been indicated, charges of accusations along with the statement of particulars on which they are based are to be furnished to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amined by the Committee in the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner might have been in a position to put certain questions to the Invigilator and ultimately be successful in bringing on record to justify his allegations against the Invigilator". As has already been analysed, if the delinquent desired to cross-examine the Invigilator it was his duty to ask, for the same. It was no part of the principle of natural justice that the prosecutor would examine oral evidence. 15. AIR 1971 Ori 212. (Ghanashyam Misra v. Orissa Association of Sanskrit Learning and Culture) is a judgment of S.K. Ray. J. and myself. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the following observation was made: "There can hardly be any controversy that the principle of natural justice would vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. One thing is, however, certain and that is that the charge must be framed indicating the allegations against the delinquent, the materials on which the allegations are based must be furnished, the delinquent must be given an opportunity to show cause against the charge documents and oral evidence in support of the charge must be examined in presence of the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed about the accusations made against him together with the statement of the allegations on which they were based; (ii) he should get a reasonable opportunity of stating his own case by way of explanation to the charges; (iii) the Tribunal which would hold the enquiry would act in good faith; and (iv) while hearing the matter the Tribunal would give full opportunity to the delinquent to make his comments and criticisms upon the materials used against him. (c) Unless statutorily or otherwise prescribed by specific rules, there is no obligation on the prosecutor to examine in the proceeding oral evidence or to suo motu give opportunity for cross-examination. (d) If, however, the delinquent as a part of defence demands that the witnesses reporting against him are to be cross-examined by him, refusal thereof would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. 17. The last case is an unreported decision in O.J.C. No. 130 of 1968 (Orissa), (Rabindra Kumar Das v. Utkal University) delivered by S.K. Ray and Patra, JJ. The defence in that case was a total denial. It was conceded that no enquiry was at all held. The conclusion in that case was co....