JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the punishment meted out to him by the respondent Board of cancelling his March 1989 examination and debarring him from appearing for two examinations upto March, 1990. 2. The petitioner was a student of Shivaji Science College, Nagpur for his Higher Secondary course. He appeared for the XII standard examination of the respondent Board in March 1989. His result was declared on 15-6-1989. He passed the said examination with 439/600 marks. However, a show cause notice dated 19-6-1989 was given to him by the Board in which he was levelled with a charge that in respect of the papers in Chemistry II, Biology I, Biology II and Mathematics I and II, he had brought pressure and/or influence upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing his marks in the above papers. By the said show cause notice he was asked to submit his explanation on or before 28-6-1989 and was also asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 1st July 1989. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the aforesaid charge against him. He also went to the office of the Board on 1-7-1989, on which date his statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In his aforesaid statement also, he denied the charge against him. According to the petitioner, nobody else was examined in his presence on 1-7-1989. However, it appears that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the valuers, the moderators and the Chief Moderator in the above papers and the custodian also. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Board on the basis of which the respondent Board by its order dated 24-7-1989 cancelled the result of the petitioner to the March 1989 examination by cancelling his examination itself and further debarred him from appearing for the examinations of the Board till March 1990. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that there is breach of the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry against the petitioner. According to him, he was not given an opportunity to meet any material used against him by the Enquiry Officer because no such material on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer was shown to him. According to him, he was not given an opportunity to meet any material used against him by the Enquiry Officer because no such material on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer was shown to him. He has also urged that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine any valuer, moderator, Chief Moderator or the custodian whose statements were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Apart from the complaint of breach of the principles of natural justice, it is further urged that even on the material available before the Enquiry Officer in the instant case the charge levelled against the petitioner about bringing pressure and/or influence upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing his marks in the above papers cannot be held to be proved. In fact, the submission is that there is no material at all before the Enquiry Officer to connect him with any irregularities in valuation of his papers even assuming that such irregularities have taken place. The learned Counsel for the Board has in support of his submission that the punishment meted out to the petitioner was justified, has brought to our notice the relevant answer papers and the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the statements recorded by him. 4. Before we advert to the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be proper to notice the procedure followed by the Board in valuation of the answer papers because the said procedure will have a bearing upon the question whether it was possible for the petitioner to bring pressure and/or influence upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing his marks or even looking at it from another angle whether in the system of valuation adopted by the Board, it was possible for the valuer, the Moderator and the Chief Moderator to increase the marks of a particular candidate who has approached anyone of them and has brought pressure and/or influence upon anyone of them. According to the Board the procedure of valuation which was followed by it in the science subjects in March 1989 XII standard examination was as follows. It had created four valuation centres subject-wise in the Science subjects and the papers in various science subjects were to be sent for valuation to the respective valuation centres. According to the Board the procedure of valuation which was followed by it in the science subjects in March 1989 XII standard examination was as follows. It had created four valuation centres subject-wise in the Science subjects and the papers in various science subjects were to be sent for valuation to the respective valuation centres. For each centre, there was appointed a Custodian to whom the Examination-in-charge in various examination centres in the Vidarbha Region sent the papers in that subject. 5. After the custodian received the answer papers he kept them under his custody at his valuation centre. He then pasted black slips so as to cover the portion showing the roll number of each candidate. Perusal of the answer papers also showed that he also covered any other identifying marks in, the answer papers with black slips. It is thus clear that care was taken by the Board that the identity of the candidate was not known to the valuer, the Moderator or the Chief Moderator for which purpose the above procedure of pasting the black slips upon the identity marks of the candidates was undertaken by the custodian. After the papers were pasted with the black slips, the custodian mixed the papers from the various centres and then prepared their fresh packets or bundles for the purpose of valuation. Such packets were then handed over by him in the next morning to the Chief Moderator in the valuation room for the purpose of valuation. 6. As regards the question of valuation at the valuation centre, all the valuers, the Moderators and the Chief Moderator assembled in one room where the work of valuation was carried on by them. After the Chief Moderator received the papers from the Custodian, he distributed various packets amongst the valuers. At one centre in one paper there were 60 Valuers, 12 Moderators and one Chief Moderator to whom the various packets of the papers were distributed for valuation. The valuation room was closed from inside so that nobody else had access to the said room when the valuation work had been going on in the said room. In the evening, all the papers which were valued or which remained to be valued were handed over to the Chief Moderator who in turn handed them over to the custodian. The valuation room was closed from inside so that nobody else had access to the said room when the valuation work had been going on in the said room. In the evening, all the papers which were valued or which remained to be valued were handed over to the Chief Moderator who in turn handed them over to the custodian. Thereafter the Chief Moderator received the said papers only in the next morning when the valuation work was continued. This procedure continued till the valuation of all the papers was over. 7. After the valuation work was over, the black slips were removed by the Custodian and he, with the assistance of the staff under him, noted down the marks received by each candidate in the Register provided for the said purpose and in the mark sheets in duplicate, of which one copy was sent by him to the Head Office of the Board at Pune. 8. It is clear from the above procedure followed by the Board, that nobody could know beforehand as to how and by whom the paper or any particular candidate was going to be valued. It appears that the Board had sought to make the procedure fool-proof and to remove any loopholes so that the examinees would not know beforehand to whom their papers would be going for valuation or moderation. As regards the Valuers, the Moderators or the Chief Moderator since the roll numbers of the candidates were covered by the black slips and even any other identifying marks left by him in his answer paper were also covered by black slips, it would not normally be possible for them to know the identity of the candidate whose paper was being valued or moderated by them. In fact, as we find in the instant case, as shown above, since the procedure of valuation was evolved so as to make it more fool proof in the sense that there would be little possibility of the candidates influencing the Valuers, the Moderators or the Chief Moderator in any paper to get higher marks, the difficult has become the task of the Board to bring home the charge against the candidate who, according to it, has resorted to using of unfair means to influence the valuer, the Moderator and the Chief Moderator. 9. 9. Turning to the merits of the case, there is great force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there is breach of the principles of natural justice in so far as no material including the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the Board, viz., the Valuers, the Moderators, the Chief Moderator and the Custodian was not shown to the petitioner and that he was not given any opportunity to defend against the same before it was used against him because the statements of none of the witnesses were recorded in his presence nor any opportunity was given to him for cross-examining the said witnesses. The above contention, therefore, deserves to be accepted. We have, however, in fact gone through the Enquiry report and the concerned answer papers of the petitioner brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the Board and after perusal of the same we do not find that there was any material before the Board so as to arrive at a conclusion that any unfair means were used by the petitioner to influence the valuer, the Moderator and the Chief Moderator for increasing the marks in the aforesaid papers. 10. Perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer shows that it is paperwise. As regards Biology Paper I, the Enquiry Officer has found that the valuer has stated before him that there was a mistake in calculating the total number of marks given to the petitioner against each question answered by him which totalling was only corrected by him. In view of the above statement of the Valuer, the Enquiry Officer did not find anybody guilty of any malpractice in Biology Paper - I including the valuer. 11. As regards Biology Paper-II, the Valuer therein had submitted her statement in which she had denied that she had corrected the total on the concerned page by erasing the original total of 25 and making it 35. The Enquiry Officer had observed that there was much difference in the total marks of 25 awarded by the valuer and the total marks 37 awarded by the Chief Moderator out of 40 marks in the above paper. He has further observed that in the column in the front page of the answer paper meant for the moderator, the original total of 25 was converted into 35. He has further observed that in the column in the front page of the answer paper meant for the moderator, the original total of 25 was converted into 35. The Moderator in his statement had denied that he had made the said change. Although Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi was described as the co-moderator, it appears from his statement and also from the front page of the answer paper in Biology (Botony) Paper-II of the petitioner I that he had acted as the Chief Moderator. He had given 37 marks to the petitioner in said paper. The Enquiry Officer had held that the said Chief Moderator had given unduly high marks to the petitioner in the above paper and that the erasures and correction of the total in the total marks given by the Valuer and the Moderator was also made by him. Similarly, he had also held that at pages Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 15 and the supplementary answer paper, the said Chief Moderator had given unduly higher marks to the petitioner. He had then referred to the fact that the valuer and the moderator had brought to his notice through their statements that the Chief Moderator had given higher marks to question No. 3(b) and 3(c) of the question paper. He had, therefore, recommended to the Board that the above Chief Moderator Javed Ahmed Azmi should be deprived of his honorarium and that he should not be allotted any work of the Board in future. He had also recommended that the concerned institution in which he was working should be communicated about the above malpractice committed by him and should be informed that appropriate action should be taken against him. 12. The Enquiry Officer had then in his report referred to the statement of Shri S.S. Andhare who according to him, was the Chief Moderator. From his statement, he had referred to the fact that after he had valued the papers, he had stated that the petitioner could get 35 marks instead of 25. The Enquiry Officer had, however, doubted the above fact. He had, therefore, concluded that the Chief Moderator Shri S.S. Andhare in collusion with the Co-Moderator Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi had made erasures upon the front page of the paper. He had thus held him also guilty. The Enquiry Officer had, however, doubted the above fact. He had, therefore, concluded that the Chief Moderator Shri S.S. Andhare in collusion with the Co-Moderator Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi had made erasures upon the front page of the paper. He had thus held him also guilty. He had, therefore, recommended to the Board that the honorarium given to the Chief Moderator Shri S.S. Andhare should be forfeited and that he should be debarred from all the work of the Board until two further examinations. 13. As regards Mathematics paper-I, on the basis of the statement of the Valuer, the Enquiry Officer had held that she was not guilty of the charge because she had stated that she had not made any erasures and that she had not given any marks upon pages Nos. 2, 7, 12, 14 and supplement (A)-pages 3 and 4 and supplement (3) page 3, supplement (4) page 4 which according to her, somebody else might have done. As regards the Moderator, the Enquiry Officer had held on the basis of the written statement given by the Moderator that he had confirmed the original total marks 27 given by the Valuer and that he had not made any erasures in the total of the marks. According to his statement, it had been confirmed that 26 marks were given in this paper by the Valuer. He therefore did not hold him also guilty in this matter. As regards the custodian, from the written statement given by him, it had appeared that the Custodian could not tell who had made the erasures in the above paper. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in regard to the erasures in Mathematics paper-I was that he could not determine who had made erasures in the said answer paper. He had, therefore, recommended that the matter should be handed over to the police. 14. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in regard to the erasures in Mathematics paper-I was that he could not determine who had made erasures in the said answer paper. He had, therefore, recommended that the matter should be handed over to the police. 14. As regards Mathematics paper-II, the Valuer of the said paper had submitted a written statement before the Enquiry Officer that he had not made any erasures upon the front page of the said answer paper As regards the erasure of 2 marks and giving of 3 marks at page No. 15, as regards giving 3 marks in place of 0(zero) at page 2 supplement (4) and of giving 2 marks after erasing 0(zero) at page No. 3 in supplement (6), the valuer had stated that he had not made the said erasures. He had then stated that wherever he had himself made the erasures, he had counter signed them by his signatures. On the basis of the above statement of the Valuer, the Enquiry Officer had held that he was not guilty. As regards the Moderator in the above paper, the Moderator had stated in his written statement submitted before the Enquiry Officer that he had not given any marks and in fact he did not moderate the said paper because the candidate had not received 80 percent. of the marks in the said paper. He had also denied that the marks given by way of moderation at pages 5, 7, 10 and supplement page 4 were in his handwriting. The Enquiry Officer did not, therefore, hold him guilty of any malpractice. As regards the written statement given by the Custodian, he had stated therein that it was difficult to state who had made the erasures in the above answer paper of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer acquitted him of any charge because, according to him, the erasures of the increase in marks could be by Co-Moderator or Moderator during the time when the paper was in their possession for valuation and not thus by the custodian and particularly when the erasures could be made and the increase in marks could be given by a person who had knowledge of the paper in question and not by the Custodian. 15. As regards the Chemistry Paper-II, the Valuer and the Moderator in that paper did not remain present for the enquiry. The Chief Moderator was present. 15. As regards the Chemistry Paper-II, the Valuer and the Moderator in that paper did not remain present for the enquiry. The Chief Moderator was present. He had admitted in his statement that he had done the moderation of the above paper and had given the marks in the said paper. The Enquiry Officer had, however, found that the original marks before they were changed to 39 as given by the valuer and the, Moderator were 26. Similarly, he had found that in the answer paper at pages 5, 8, 11, 12 and 13 and supplement No. (1) page 2, supplement No. (2) page 2, there were erasures in the marks given by the valuer. The Enquiry Officer had held that the Chief Moderator should have brought these erasures in the marks given by the valuer and the Moderator to the notice of the authorities of the Board which mistake he had deliberately committed. The Enquiry Officer had thus held that the Chief Moderator in this paper was guilty. He had, therefore, recommended to the Board that his honorarium should be forfeited and that he should be deprived of all the work of the Board. He had further recommended that his institution should be informed about his malpractice for taking appropriate action against him. He had thus come to the conclusion that in Chemistry paper-II and Biology (Botany) paper-II the petitioner had brought pressure and/or influence upon, the concerned persons for increasing his marks and, therefore, he was guilty of the said charge against him. He had, therefore, recommended that his March 1989 examination should be cancelled and he should be debarred from appearing for further two examinations of the Board. 16. It is clear from the above report of the Enquiry Officer that he has held the petitioner guilty of malpractice in two papers only, viz. Chemistry paper-II and Biology (Botany) paper II although the charge against him is about the malpractice in Biology Paper-I and Mathematics papers-I and II also. As regards the Chemistry paper II, it may be seen that the Enquiry Officer has strangely given the benefit of doubt to the valuer and the Moderator who chose to remain absent before him in the enquiry. As regards the Chemistry paper II, it may be seen that the Enquiry Officer has strangely given the benefit of doubt to the valuer and the Moderator who chose to remain absent before him in the enquiry. Without there being any material before him he proceeded on the assumption that they had only given 26 marks to the candidate and had not effected any erasures and had not given subsequently 39 marks to him. He has implicated the Chief Moderator who has chosen to appear before him and has admitted before him the marks allotted by him to each question. 17. It is beyond comprehension how by the marks given by the Chief Moderator and only because he did not bring the irregularity to the notice of the Board it can be held that he himself had made erasures and changes in the marks given by the valuer and the Moderator. In fact, for remaining absent at the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer should have recommended forfeiture of honorarium payable to the valuer and the Moderator. In the absence of their statements that they have not changed the marks from 26 to 39, the inference cannot be drawn that the 39 marks given by the Chief Moderator are an increase from the original marks 26 given by the valuer and the Moderator. Moreover, if the charge is that the Chief Moderator had unduly increased the marks of the petitioner in this paper, the best way to determine that question was to get this paper valued by an independent and impartial valuer which would have shown whether the above answer paper deserved only 26 marks or 39 marks. It is possible that the answer paper of the petitioner deserved 39 marks which the Chief Moderator had correctly given. If the marks given by the Chief Moderator are justified, it cannot be held that the petitioner had brought any pressure and/or influence upon him or has induced him to give higher marks in the said paper apart from the fact that there is no evidence in this case to show that the petitioner had approached him for the said purpose. Moreover, as already pointed out, in the procedure of valuation referred to above, it is not possible for the Chief Moderator to know that the paper he was valuing was of the petitioner because there was no roll number or any identifying mark to show that this answer paper was of the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be held that there is any material to show that the petitioner had brought any pressure upon the Chief Moderator or the valuer or the Moderator for enhancing his marks in this paper. 18. As regards the Biology paper-II, there is a basic law in the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer in appreciating the statements of the Valuer, the Moderator, the alleged Co-Moderator Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi and the Chief Moderator Shri S.S. Andhare. It is true that the Valuer Smt. S.C. Deshpande and the Moderator Shri S.R. Partake have stated that they have not made the erasures and that they have given only 25 marks to the petitioner in this paper which is also clear from the writing of the total marks in words in their columns on the front page meant for the marks given by them to each question and the total number of marks received by the candidate. 19. However, as regards the statement of Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi, it clearly appears from his statement as well as from the column in which the marks are given by him that he was acting as a Chief Moderator in this paper and not as co-moderator. There are no erasures in the column on the front page meant for the marks to be given by him. From his statement it is further clear that he had given 1 mark more to the answers to questions Nos. 3 and 4 because according to him, although the valuer had given more importance to the language used by the petitioner, he had looked to the substance of the answer given by him and has therefore increased his mark by 1 in each of the above questions. It is not in dispute that the Chief Moderator is entitled to put his own valuation because it appears from the paper that 35 marks, were given to the petitioner both by the valuer and the moderator which were more than 80 percent. It is not in dispute that the Chief Moderator is entitled to put his own valuation because it appears from the paper that 35 marks, were given to the petitioner both by the valuer and the moderator which were more than 80 percent. It would further appear that if any changes were made in the marks it would be done at the time of the valuation itself because all the three persons viz. the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator were doing their work in the valuation room itself and after the valuer and the moderator had valued or moderated the paper, the paper would go to the Chief Moderator for his moderation in the valuation room itself. 20. In these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer instead of accepting the statements of the valuer and the moderator in this behalf, should have made further probe in the matter as to who had made the erasures and changed the total to 35 in this paper. If the total marks given by the valuer and the, moderator were 35, there is not much difference in this valuation and the valuation made by Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi who had given 37 marks by giving more emphasis upon the substance of the answer rather than its language as stated above. As regards the question whether Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi was acting as the Chief Moderator in this paper or as co-moderator as described by the Enquiry Officer in his report, it is clear from the statement of Shri S.S. Andhare recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the said Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi was acting as Chief Moderator in the said paper. 21. The statement of Shri S.S. Andhare is important from another angle also. It is pertinent to see that he has in answer to question No. 1 put to him, stated that he had not done the moderation of this paper. He was however, required to do its moderation by the Enquiry Officer as is clear from question No. 3 put to him. It is clear from the answer to question. No. 3 that the said Shri S.S. Andhare has given marks to each of the questions and their sub-questions and the total number of marks which he has awarded to the petitioner are 35. It is clear from the answer to question. No. 3 that the said Shri S.S. Andhare has given marks to each of the questions and their sub-questions and the total number of marks which he has awarded to the petitioner are 35. It may be seen that the valuation made by Shri S.S. Andhare is an independent valuation made in the presence of the Enquiry Officer. He has stated in answer to question No. 4 that his valuation of 35 marks in this paper is proper. If the valuation of 35 marks made independently and in the presence of the Enquiry Officer is proper, it is difficult to see how there was any malpractice adopted in erasing 26 and making the total number of marks 35 in the column of the valuer and the moderator. 22. As already pointed out and also in view of the above valuation made by Shri S.S. Andhare, the Enquiry Officer should have made a further probe in regard to the statement made by the valuer and the moderator that they, had given only 25 marks and had not made any erasures or changes in the marks allotted to the petitioner in this paper. At any rate, as per the procedure for valuation adopted by the Board according to which the identity of the examinee cannot be known to the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator who have to do the work of valuation in the valuation room itself and in the absence of the evidence that the petitioner had approached the alleged co-moderator or the Chief Moderator Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi, it is not possible for us to hold that the petitioner has brought any influence upon him particularly when by reason of the independent valuation made by Shri S.S. Andhare the total marks allotted to him in this paper are 35 which tally with the total marks shown in the columns meant for the valuer and the moderator and further when for the reasons given by Shri Javed Ahmed Azmi that by looking to the substance of the answers and not the language he has raised marks to certain answers of the petitioner which makes his total as 37. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in regard to the alleged malpractice in the Biology Paper II is thus perverse. 23. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in regard to the alleged malpractice in the Biology Paper II is thus perverse. 23. The learned Counsel for the Board has also sought to contend before, us that the increase in the marks in the Mathematics Papers I and II by making erasures also showed that the petitioner had brought pressure upon the valuer and the moderator. However, the said contention cannot be upheld for the reason firstly that no independent valuation of the said papers was made by the Board to show that the higher marks allotted to the petitioner in the said papers were not at all justified and secondly because the Enquiry Officer himself had not found the petitioner guilty of any malpractice in these papers since his conclusion is that it is not possible to determine who has made the erasures in the said papers for which reason he has recommended that the matter should be handed over to the police. It is thus clear that the charge that any pressure was brought upon the valuer, the moderator and the Chief Moderator is not brought home in the enquiry conducted by the respondent Board in the instant case. 24. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner of cancelling his XII standard examination of March, 1989 and of debarring him from further examinations upto March 1990 as per the order dated 24-7-1989 impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The result of March 1989 XII standard examination given by the petitioner declared on 15-6-1989 shall stand restored. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. Writ Petition allowed. -----