Honble SINGH, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2003 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7077/2002. (2). Brief facts giving rise to this special appeal are that the appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 17.5.2001 for conducting the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2001. (3). Pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2001, the respondent submitted his application form in SC category. (4). The RPSC conducted the aforesaid examination on 16/17 September, 2001 and the result thereof was declared on 20.11.2001. But the result of the respondent was withheld as at the time of evaluation of the answer books of the respondent it was discovered that Page No. 23 of the answer book of Law Paper-1 and pages 11 to 14 of Law Paper-II were torn. The appellant RPSC wrote a letter dated 23.11.2001 to the respondent requiring him to furnish his explanation. In response to the letter of the RPSC, the respondent on 26.11.2001 submitted his explanation, whereby the respondent denied having torn the pages of his answer books and submitted that the answer books were handed over to the Invigilator in completely intact position. (5). The respondent was also given an opportunity of personal hearing by the appellant. Availing that opportunity the respondent appeared before the RPSC on 19.12.2001. After hearing the respondent, the RPSC did not find his explanation to be satisfactory and accordingly, the RPSC cancelled the examination of the respondent and also debarred him from appearing in all the examination of the respondent and also debarred him from appearing in all the examinations of the RPSC for a period of two years vide order dated 30.9.2002. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2002, the respondent challenged the same by way of a writ petition. (6). During the pendency of the writ petition an advertisement was issued by the appellant inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II on 19.2.2002. The respondent also applied for the said post. Pursuant to an interim order dated 4.10.2002, the respondent was allowed to appear in the screening test held for selecting a candidate for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II. (7). On 25.9.2003, the learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition of the respondent and quashed and set aside the order of the appellant dated 30.9.2002. Pursuant to an interim order dated 4.10.2002, the respondent was allowed to appear in the screening test held for selecting a candidate for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II. (7). On 25.9.2003, the learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition of the respondent and quashed and set aside the order of the appellant dated 30.9.2002. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge also directed the appellant to declare the result of the respondent pertaining to the examination of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II. It seems that the learned Single Judge felt that in order to establish the fact that the pages of the answer sheets were torn by the respondent, it was incumbent upon the RPSC to have examined the invigilator as to how and in what manner the pages of the answer books could be torn in his presence. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that since the malpractice was not detected in the examination hall itself, the respondent could not have been held responsible for the act of hearing the pages from the answer books without initiating any inquiry into the matter and without recording the statement of the invigilator. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the examination of the respondent was not rightly cancelled and he could not be debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted by the RPSC. (8). Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. By order dated 10.11.2003 the appellant was directed to produce the relevant answer books. Pursuant thereto the answer books were presented before us by the appellant. The appellant was also directed to produce in sealed cover the respondents result in the written examination held for the selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade- II. As per the direction, the result was also produced in a sealed cover by the appellant for our perusal. (9). We have perused the respondents result of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II examination. The respondent has secured 50 marks only. The last candidate who was selected for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II secured 52 marks. (10). We have also gone through the answer books of the respondent. The answer books of the respondent reveal that the respondent has not attempted to answer question Nos. 30 and 31 in Law Paper-I and question Nos. The last candidate who was selected for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II secured 52 marks. (10). We have also gone through the answer books of the respondent. The answer books of the respondent reveal that the respondent has not attempted to answer question Nos. 30 and 31 in Law Paper-I and question Nos. 31 and 32 in Law Paper II. Besides in answer books of Law Paper-I and Law Paper-II, page No. 23 and page Nos. 31 and 32 respectively have been torn. (11). It is not the case of the respondent that the invigilator was having any enmity with him and because of vendetta he may have torn the pages. The respondent has also not alleged that any employee of the RPSC was entertaining a grudge against him and he may have been responsible for tearing the pages of his answer books. It is well known that as soon as the examination time gets over, the invigilators are required to collect the answer books of the examinees with promptitude. When the invigilators are collecting the answer books they hardly have any time to go through the answer books to find out as to whether or not any examinee has indulged in malpractices. Therefore, normally it is not possible to detect the malpractices at the time of collection of the answer books. (12). A reference to the following observations of Earl of Selborne, L.C. in Arthur John Spackman vs. Plumstead Board of Works (1), were made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment: ``No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as to how person who is to decide is to proceed, the law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He is not a judge in the proper sense of the word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter, and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. Therefore, the person who is to take a decision must not breach the substantial requirement of justice. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter, and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. Therefore, the person who is to take a decision must not breach the substantial requirement of justice. Principles of substantial requirement of justice would be satisfied, provided the decision is made by observing the following conditions by the person who decides: 1. He must issue notice of hearing of the matter to the parties; 2. He must provide proper opportunity of hearing to the parties by allowing them to state their case and their views; 3. He must act honestly; 4. He must act impartially; and 5. He must act independently without being dictated by some other person. (13). The decision of the RPSC cannot be faulted on the ground that any of the aforesaid conditions laid down by the Privy Council have been violated in rendering the same. In the instant case the respondent was asked to submit his explanation with regard to the discovery of the missing pages of the answer books and after he gave his written explanation, he was given proper opportunity of hearing to state his case. It is not the case of the respondent that the RPSC acted dishonestly or its decision was dictated by some other person. Thus it appears to us that there was no infraction of the principles of `Substantial Requirement Of Justice by the RPSC. (14). Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge on the following observations of Lord Parmoor in De Verteuil vs. Knaggs (2): ``The particular form of enquiry must depend on the conditions under which the discretion is exercised in any particular case, and no general rule applicable to all conditions can be formulated. In other words, it seems to us that the nature of inquiry in a particular case is contingent on or conditioned by the circumstances under which the decision is to be rendered. Therefore, the format of enquiry cannot be put in a straight jacket and no rigid formula can be laid down for testing the validity of an enquiry. Since the RPSC is required to continuously hold examinations for recruitment to various services, thousands and lacs of employment seekers appears in the examinations conducted by the RPSC. Therefore, the format of enquiry cannot be put in a straight jacket and no rigid formula can be laid down for testing the validity of an enquiry. Since the RPSC is required to continuously hold examinations for recruitment to various services, thousands and lacs of employment seekers appears in the examinations conducted by the RPSC. In the circumstances, where lacs of persons appear in the examinations, the RPSC can not be expected to hold enquiries in the manner in which the court tries a cause. Suffice it to say that the inquiry conducted by the RPSC to locate the malpractice or misconduct of the respondent was a fair one and no fault can be found with it. (15). The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education and Others vs. Roupshanara Momtaz & Another (3), to explain the meaning of the word ``malpractice. The Calcutta High Court has taken a view that malpractice for which action can be taken should result in some sort of inquiry, loss or damage or wrongful gain. It was also of the view that malpractice means professional misconduct or unreasonable lack of skill and the term is applied to the professionals. The learned Single Judge applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court to the instant case was of opinion that since the respondent had not gained from the missing pages of the answer books, he cannot be held to have indulged in dishonest or a fraudulent act and since the alleged malpractice on the part of the respondent was not detected in the examination hall, he could not have been held responsible for the act of treating the pages from the answer books. (16). We have not been able to pursuade ourselves to subscribe to the view that malpractice should always result in some form of inquiry, loss, damage or wrongful gain to person. Many a times malpractices of persons do not achieve the intended goals. They miss the aims and desired consequences. More often than not, the reason for indulging in malpractices lies embedded in the minds of the persons practicing malpractices and it is difficult to dig the same. Many a times malpractices of persons do not achieve the intended goals. They miss the aims and desired consequences. More often than not, the reason for indulging in malpractices lies embedded in the minds of the persons practicing malpractices and it is difficult to dig the same. An examinee can also be said to have misconducted himself in the examination if he adopts unfair means in the examination or tears the pages of his answer-sheet. Misconduct does not always mean a professional misconduct. Some times the desired outcome of the actions do not materialize and the reasons for indulging in malpractices and misconduct cannot be discovered. But we cannot bail out an examinee just because he did not benefit by his acts of indiscretion committee by him in the examination or the reason for indulging in the same was not discovered. (17). The observations of the learned Single Judge that how and in what manner the pages from the answer books could be torn in the presence of the invigilator and could any one dare to mishandle the answer book in the examination hall escaping the attention of the invigilators, which were in the form of query, may have been relevant in times when the examinees were disciplined and there was fear of authority. In recent times the things have changes. Malpractices in the examinations are committed in the presence of invigilators. It is well high impossible for invigilators to keep all the examinees under their gaze all the time. Many a times, unfair means adopted by an examinee escapes the attention of the invigilator. Just because the invigilator at the time of collection of the answer-sheets was not able to detect that the aforesaid answer-books of the respondent were not completely intact, cannot be a ground to absolve the respondent. (18). Admittedly, the pages of the aforesaid answer sheets of the respondent were torn. In this regard as already pointed out, the respondent was asked by the RPSC to submit his explanation. After the receipt of the explanation, an opportunity of personal hearing was also accorded to him by the RPSC. It was only after hearing the respondent, that the RPSC cancelled the candidature of the respondent for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2001 and debarred him from appearing in any of the examinations conducted by the RPSC for a period of two years. It was only after hearing the respondent, that the RPSC cancelled the candidature of the respondent for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2001 and debarred him from appearing in any of the examinations conducted by the RPSC for a period of two years. Thus the principles of natural justice were complied with by the RPSC before passing the order canceling the candidature of the respondent for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination and debarring him for appearing in the examinations conducted by the RPSC for two years. The Court while dealing with the decision of an administrative authority is required to see whether or not a fair procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice has been followed by the concerned authority. It is not concerned with the merits of the decision. In other words, the court is concerned with the method and manner in which the decision has been reached. In case the decision does not suffer from any procedural impropriety and has been arrived at in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the Court will not interfere with the same, unless the decision is arbitrary, illegal or no reasonable person could have arrived at it. (19). In Bihar Public Service Commission and Another vs. Vinoy Kumar Singh and Another (4), the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Bihar State Public Service Commission canceling the answer sheet of a candidate and debarring him from appearing in the examination being conducted by it, on account of the malpractices resorted to by the candidate in the examination as the decision did not suffer from any procedural impropriety. (20). The learned counsel for the respondent questioned the propriety of the procedure followed by the RPSC for canceling the examination of the respondent and debarring him from appearing in the future examinations of the RPSC for a period of two years. He submitted that since the invigilator was not examined, the decision reached by the RPSC stood vitiated. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is not the case of either of the parties that the invigilator had seen the respondent tearing the pages of the answer sheets. This being so, no useful purpose would have been served in recording the statements of the invigilator. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is not the case of either of the parties that the invigilator had seen the respondent tearing the pages of the answer sheets. This being so, no useful purpose would have been served in recording the statements of the invigilator. In the matter of this nature the strict rules of evidence do not apply. In Local Government Board vs. Arlidge (5), the House of Lords held that where the question of propriety of procedure is adopted by Tribunal other than a court of law, there is no obligation to adopt the regular form of judicial procedure. In this regard it was observed as follows : ``Where, however, the question of the propriety of procedure is raised in a hearing before some tribunal other than a court of law there is no obligation to adopt the regular forms of judicial procedure. It is sufficient that the case has been heard in a judicial spirit and in accordance with the principles of substantial justice. In determining whether the principles of substantial justice have been complied with in matters of procedure regard must necessarily be had to the nature of the issue to be determined and the constitution of the tribunal. We are satisfied that in the instant case principles of natural and substantial justice have been complied with by the RPSC in reaching the aforesaid decision on totality of circumstances. (21). In the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the decision of the RPSC, debarring the respondent from appearing in any of the examinations of the RPSC for a period of two years and directing the RPSC to declare the result of the respondent in respect of the APP Grade II Examination, 2002. (22). In view of aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.9.2003. (23). However, it is made clear that the period of debarment in the examinations of the RPSC shall be counted from the date of examination of RJS i.e. 16/17.09.2001.