JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - The petitioner in these two petitions is one Shiva Lal Varma. He has two sons, Kishori Lal Varma and Chandra Lal Verma. The latter was a regular student of Kanda Higher Secondary School during the session 1955-1956. The other son Kishori Lal was not a regular student of this school but he nevertheless appeared at the High School Examination held at this centre in 1955-56. Both Kishori Lal and Chandra Lal were thus candidates at the High School Examination conducted in that year at that centre. Chandra Lal was apprehended by Sri Krishna Nand Joshi, one of the invigilators for using unfair means. A manuscript was found in his possession which he was using. Kishori Lal was also found to be similarly using unfair means at the examination but that part of the allegation has no direct relevance in this case because the impugned order, so far as he was concerned, was founded on the ground that he beat Sri Joshi the invigilator, who had apprehended his brother, outside the examination hall on account of his (Sri Joshi's) conduct. It is alleged that Kishori Lal felt annoyed with Sri Joshi for his having apprehended his brother, therefore when Sri Joshi came out of the examination hail, Kishori Lal with some others attacked and beat him. 2. The case against the two sons of the petitioner further is that after the above incidents, the Inspector of Schools concerned was deputed to make an inquiry into them and this officer after necessary investigation and hearing the two sons and their father also on the charges against them reported that they had in fact acted in the manner complained of. The report submitted by the Inspector of Schools as a result of the above inquiry is on record and according to it also both the boys and their father were heard by him but he (the Inspector of Schools) was not prepared to accept their denial. He, on the contrary, reported that the allegations made against them were substantially true. On this report the Examinations Committee, acting under clause (i) of part 1 of Chapter VI , of the Regulations of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, cancelled the examination for the year 1955-1956. In the case of both the boys and also debarred them from appearing in the examination for 1957-1958. On this report the Examinations Committee, acting under clause (i) of part 1 of Chapter VI , of the Regulations of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, cancelled the examination for the year 1955-1956. In the case of both the boys and also debarred them from appearing in the examination for 1957-1958. The present petition is directed against the above orders of the Examination's Committee with respect to the two boys. 3. The grounds urged against the said orders, briefly, are that Kishori Lal and Chandra Lal were not given an opportunity to show cause against their alleged conduct nor were they acquainted with the evidence against them before imposing the punishment awarded to them. It is also said that evidence was heard by the Inspector of Schools at their back which vitiated the inquiry. While admitting that Kishori Lal had been given an opportunity by the Inspector of Schools in the course of inquiry, the petitioner denies that similar opportunity was given to Chandra Lal. In his case therefore the ground further is that even these proceedings were vitiated. Another ground is that the punishment awarded by the Examination's Committee is arbitrary. On behalf of the Board the reply is that Chandra Lal and Kishori Lal both were discovered in possession of certain manuscript chits for the purpose of unfairly using them in the examination. It is further alleged that Chandra Lal, after the chits had been discovered from him, left the examination hall in spite of the invigilators offering him to sit and continue the examination on another answer book to be given to him. In the case of Kishori Lal there is no such allegation, but it is contended that the chit recovered from him was taken away and destroyed. The main allegation therefore, so far as this candidate was concerned, is that he was guilty of indiscipline in attacking and beating the invigilator Sri Joshi after he came out from the examination hall. It is denied that these persons or their father were not given an opportunity to show cause, and the counter allegation in fact is that they were actually examined by the Inspector of Schools who, however, was not impressed by their explanation. It is denied that these persons or their father were not given an opportunity to show cause, and the counter allegation in fact is that they were actually examined by the Inspector of Schools who, however, was not impressed by their explanation. The allegation by the petitioner that their demand to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inspector of Schools in the course of inquiry is not admitted while it is pointed out that there was nothing on the relevant file that any such request had been Made. The respondents do not therefore admit that the impugned orders passed by the Examination's Committee were made at their back or without giving an opportunity to show cause against the accusations. 4. It may be necessary to refer briefly to the relevant provisions of Part I of Chapter VI of the Regulations aforesaid for a decision of the dispute. It provides that it shall by the duty of the Examinations, Committee, subject to the sanction and control of the Board- "(1) To consider cases where examinees have used unfair means or committed fraud (including impersonation) - at the examination or are guilty of a moral offence or indiscipline and to award penalty which may be one or more of the following: (1) Withdrawal of certificate of having passed the examination, (2) Cancellation of the examination, (3) Exclusion from the examination." 5. According to the above provisions the Examination's Committee has power to punish the examinee for using unfair means at the examination. It can punish him also where he is guilty of a moral offence or indiscipline at the examination. The allegations in the case of both the examinees here were that one of them, namely, Chandra Lal was actually found using unfair means at the examination and the other, namely, Kishori Lal, though he too was discovered in possession of a chit, was guilty of indiscipline for attacking and beating Sri Joshi. These allegations have no doubt been disputed by the petitioner but in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the report of the Inspector who was deputed to make the inquiry. I have no doubt that such incidents took place. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material to cast any doubt on these facts. I have no doubt that such incidents took place. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material to cast any doubt on these facts. I am therefore not prepared to accept that these incidents did not take place. 6. The next question that may need to be determined is whether the two boys and their father were given an opportunity to explain their conduct in relation to these incidents. Kishori Lal does not deny that he was given an opportunity but his explanation is that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses whom the Inspector had examined at his back. As earlier pointed out, this part of his case is not admitted by the respondents who also point out that there was no evidence on the relevant record to show that any such request had in fact been made. I entirely agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the absence of any application or like fact on the record of the case showing that such a request has been made, it is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. Admittedly at the inquiry held by the Inspector, the present petitioner, who is their father, was also present and I am unable to believe that, although they made a request for the cross-examination of those witnesses, the Inspector refused and still the father did not take any steps to place that fact on record. I am not prepared to hold in the circumstances that an opportunity to cross-examine was asked by him but was declined by the inspector. From the report of the Inspector it is clear that both the boys and the father were questioned about the incidents and they were asked to explain their conduct also which means that all the necessary material had been placed before them. 7. In the case of Chandra Lal it is said that he was not given any opportunity by the Inspector. But this fact is denied and as appeared from the report of the Inspector he too was examined along with his father. In his case also it cannot be said that an opportunity was not given. 8. In view of the above facts it cannot be successfully urged that the two boys or their father had not been afforded an opportunity to show cause against the charges levelled against them. In his case also it cannot be said that an opportunity was not given. 8. In view of the above facts it cannot be successfully urged that the two boys or their father had not been afforded an opportunity to show cause against the charges levelled against them. The rules of natural justice required that before they were condemned on the charges against them they were given an opportunity to show cause against them. This was done in the present case. The order of the Examination's Committee cannot be impugned on that ground. It was contended that the Examination's Committee itself made no inquiry but the Inspector of Schools did it. I do not think there is much substance in this contention because the rules of natural justice only require that the person charged is given an opportunity which nevertheless was given in this case. It was not necessary for the Examination's Committee, once these persons had been afforded the necessary opportunity, to repeat the process again. The mere fact therefore that an opportunity was not given over again by the Examination's Committee failed to vitiate the order passed by it. 9. Coming to the other points urged in this case, one of them has been that Kishori Lal who inflicted beating on the invigilator outside the examination hall and who had not been charged specifically for himself using unfair means, was not liable to be punished for his alleged conduct by the Examination's Committee. The argument is that even though his act in beating Mr. Joshi was a display of indiscipline it did not take place at the examination but took place afterwards outside the examination hall, the Examination Committee had therefore no jurisdiction in the matter. From the facts, as they are alleged, it was clear that Kishori Lal beat Sri Joshi in the school premises soon after the latter came out of the examination hall after his having detected his brother while using unfair means. No doubt, the beating was not inflicted in the examination hall nor just at the time when the examination was actually continuing, but I see no reason why such a restricted meaning should be given to the expression 'at the examination used in clause (1) aforesaid. No doubt, the beating was not inflicted in the examination hall nor just at the time when the examination was actually continuing, but I see no reason why such a restricted meaning should be given to the expression 'at the examination used in clause (1) aforesaid. Just as it is not necessary that unfair means can always be adopted inside the examination hall only, they can easily be employed outside the hall, in the premises where the examination centre is situate, likewise acts of indiscipline can also be displayed outside the examination hall and they may still be acts displayed at the examination. The beating of an invigilator at the place of the centre after he comes out of the examination hall, particularly when the cause for doing so is the conduct of the invigilator inside the examination hall is undoubtedly indiscipline at the examination. It will make no difference that the candidate who inflicted the beating was persuaded in doing so by any alleged wrong done to his brother or his friend. The criterion is whether the act complained of was an act of indiscipline and did it take place at the examination. Both these conditions are to my mind fulfilled in this case. I am therefore unable to accept that Kishori Lal could not be proceeded against under clause (1) aforesaid. 10. The next argument is directed against the punishment awarded by the Examination's Committee. As was noticed earlier, the Committee cancelled the examinations of both the candidates. It further debarred them from taking the examination in 1957 and 1958. The petitioner's contention is that the Committee had no power to inflict the punishment debarring the candidates from taking the examination in 1957-1958. While the punishment of cancellation of the examination of 1957 inflicted by it was arbitrary. So long as the relevant rule authorised the Examination's Committee to impose any particular punishment, the Committee alone was competent to determine whether that or any minor punishment permitted by the law was called for in the particular case. There is no dispute that the Examinations' Committee had the power to cancel the examination on the ground of indiscipline at the examination or the using of unfair means. The order of the committee cancelling the examination of the two candidates can not therefore be questioned. There is no dispute that the Examinations' Committee had the power to cancel the examination on the ground of indiscipline at the examination or the using of unfair means. The order of the committee cancelling the examination of the two candidates can not therefore be questioned. Whether the Committee was further entitled to debar the two boys from taking the examination in 1957-1958, further needs to be considered. It, however, appeared that the impugned orders were made in 1956 and they debarred the two boys from appearing in the examination of 1957-1958. These examinations are already over and I am told the two boys did not appear at those examinations. In view of this development, it does not appear necessary to consider the specific question as to the power of the Examination's committee to debar a candidate from future examinations. For the said reason I am not expressing any final opinion on that point as no purpose would be served by doing so in the present case, though prima facie there appeared considerable force in what the petitioner has contended in view of the provision in clause (1) under which the punishment is inflicted. 11. The view of the finding against Kishori Lal and Chandra Lal that they were guilty of indiscipline and using unfair means at the examination and that the order of the Examination's Committee was not vitiated on the grounds as alleged by them, these petitions should fail. 12. The petitions are accordingly dismissed but I make order as to costs.