BANNE SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated November 25,1992 (Annexure 3) whereby the respondent No. 2 i.e. Indian Institute of Bankers cancelled the petitioner's results of the June-1990 Associate Examination and debarred him from appearing at the examination of the institute upto June 30, 1995. The petitioner has also prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction he may be declared to have passed in the Management Accounting (Subject Sr. No. 09) and Finance of Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange (Subject Sr. No. 10) and to direct respondent No. 1 to grant all such reliefs to him for which he had become entitled on the basis of having passed the Associate Examination-June, 1990.

(2.) In nut shell the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier/Clerk on March 31, 1983, in the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1. He was confirmed on this post later on in 1983 itself. He appeared in Associate Examination-June, 1990 conducted by Indian Institute of Bankers, Bombay (respondent No. 2) and his examination centre was at Hindaun City. Respondent No. 2 has been conducting examination for the purpose of promotion and other service benefits of the officers/employees of the various banks in India including the Bank of Baroda. He appeared in five subjects. According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid examination held in the year 1990 he had cleared three subjects, namely: Management Accounting, Finance of Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange and the Indian Economic Problems and the remaining two subjects were cleared by him in the year 1992. After declaration of the result a show cause notice dated 17.3.1992 issued by the respondent No. 2 was received by the petitioner wherein he was charged with having adopted mal practices at the aforesaid Associate Examination-June, 1990 in the papers mentioned in the show cause notice. It was also stated that in the said examination the petitioner had copied his answer/s from one another or from a common source/guide and the particulars of the same were given in Annexure A attached with the notice. He was called upon to submit his explanation in regard to the charges set out in the show cause notice. As per the case of the petitioner he submitted his explanation but the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby his results of June-1990 Associate Examination was cancelled and he was also debarred from appearing at the examination of the Institute upto June 30,1995.

(3.) Learned counsel vehemently argued that after the declaration of the petitioner's result in 3 papers in 1990, the respondent No. 2 could not have inferred into the alleged unfair means or mal practices of the said examination. Counsel contended that the entire action of the respondent No. 2 was unjustified and arbitrary. It was also contended that there was no convincing evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner and having adopted mal practice at the aforesaid examination, in having copied the answer/s as pointed out in the impugned order. Counsel further submitted that his explanation was not properly considered by the concerned authorities and the impugned order suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on Triambak Pati Tripathi v. The Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, 1973 AIR(All) 1, Ajai Kumar v. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, 1979 AIR(All) 13, and Harish Chandra Tewari and others vs. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, 1981 AIR(All) 144.