JUDGMENT 1. 1. In this writ petition petitioner Ajay Singh has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 2nd July, 1987 (Annex. 4), passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has sought further direction that the examination of the petitioner of 2nd semester be restored and the result of the entire examination of 2nd semester be declared and he be allowed to get admission and study in the next semester of the course i.e., 3rd semester. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner after passing his Higher Secondary Examination took admission in the Government Polytechnic College, Ajmer for doing diploma course in the held of electrical engineering. The diploma course of technical education in electrical engineering is of three years' duration only. There are six semesters. The whole course of the study is divided and distributed in six semesters. A student is required to qualify all the subjects elected in one semester. It is on passing of the subjects of one semester a student can get admission in the next one. 3. The petitioner took admission in the three-year diploma course in the month of June-July, 1986 and successfully passed the examination of the first semester and after passing the examination of the first semester he took admission in second semester. After completion of the session of 2nd semester, the examinations of 2nd semester were conducted by the Board of Technical Education, Jodhpur. The petitioner appeared in the examination. It is alleged that when the petitioner was attempting the question paper on 8th May, 1987, the invigilator came to the petitioner with a small piece of paper which was tiled with cuttings on both the sides. The invigilator alleged that the paper belonged to the petitioner. A complaint was made to the Central Superintendent Examination. The petitioner submitted before the Central Superintendent that the alleged paper did not being to him. The petitioner was asked to fill up the form. It is alleged that the form was forcibly got filled up. In the form certain queries were raised and their answers were recorded. Signatures of the petitioner were also obtained on the form. Allegations against the petitioner were that he used unfair means in the examination. The petitioner thereafter supplied with a new answer book and he was allowed to appear. 4. In the form certain queries were raised and their answers were recorded. Signatures of the petitioner were also obtained on the form. Allegations against the petitioner were that he used unfair means in the examination. The petitioner thereafter supplied with a new answer book and he was allowed to appear. 4. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 26th May, 1987, by which the explanation from the petitioner was sought. In the show cause notice the allegations were that on 8th May, 1997, he had used unfair means in the examination of the subject of Social Science, the Code No. of which was 216. It was pointed out that the conduct to use unfair means is punishable under Rule 2 of the Punishment Schedule of the Board. it was also explained to the petitioner that he may either explain the allegations in writing or may appear to explain the same in person. The petitioner submitted his explanation by both ways. The petitioner also submitted his explanation personally on 10th June, 1987, in the office of respondent No. 1. The petitioner was punished by order dated 22nd July, 1987 according to category 2 of the punishment schedule The petitioner's whole examination of the 2nd semester, which included theory papers and practicals both were cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in the examination which would be held in November, 1981. The petitioner was further restrained to study in any institutions The petitioner assailed the order of punishment in this petition on various grounds. 5. The principal ground of attract is that the petitioner was not afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. Neither the statement of the petitioner was recorded nor an enquiry was made in the matter of the allegations against him. 6. In the report filed by the non-petitioners, it is pointed out that the petitioner was given a show cause notice. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The petitioner was called to appear before the committee on 10th June, 1987. The petitioner appeared before the committee. His statement was recorded. The allegations of coercion and threatening given to the petitioner were emphatically denied. It was also contended in the reply that the petitioner voluntarily filled up the form. The petitioner was called to appear before the committee on 10th June, 1987. The petitioner appeared before the committee. His statement was recorded. The allegations of coercion and threatening given to the petitioner were emphatically denied. It was also contended in the reply that the petitioner voluntarily filled up the form. In the reply, it is stated that the impugned order was passed after taking into consideration the entire record and the report of the examination result committee meeting which had taken place on 23rd June, 1987. It is also asserted that the committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner brought a paper in the examination. room, but he did not use the same. 7. We have heard Shri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Dy. Government Advocate. We have also perused the documents on record, the original form filed in the examination hall and also the record of the examination result committee, which was placed before us in view of the directions given by this court on 16th October, 1987, we are satisfied that the petitioner was given a show cause notice. The petitioner was also asked to appear in person. The case of the petitioner was examined by the examination result committee. His statement was recorded and the conclusion recorded by the committee is in no way perverse or against the record. Thus, there remains no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was found guilty in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being beard. 8. Shri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the punishment meted against the petitioner is too severe and disproportionate. to the misconduct alleged against him. He pointed out that even as per the finding of the committee, the petitioner did not use the paper alleged to have been found with him. We are of the opinion that there is merit in the submission of Shri Singh with regard to the imposition of penalty. 9. As observed above, it is evident that the petitioner did not use the said paper. Further there is no evidence that the contents of the said paper could be used for solving the questions of Social Science paper (Code No. 216). 9. As observed above, it is evident that the petitioner did not use the said paper. Further there is no evidence that the contents of the said paper could be used for solving the questions of Social Science paper (Code No. 216). In the circumstances, punishment of category 2 of the punishment schedule was not warranted. 10. In the promises aforesaid, we partly allow the writ, petition, quash the order of punishment dated 22nd July, 1987 (Annex iv) and instead substitute the punishment of cancellation of examination in Social Science paper (Code No. 216) only. Accordingly, the petitioner will be allowed to appear in second year III semester as per rules. 11. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Partly allowed. *******