JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of the Board of Secondary Education in cancelling his result of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013. 2. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013 from Dwarikanath Ucha Vidyapitha, Kalahandi though he was prosecuting his studies from Rajaram Ucha Vidyapitha, Dumeruguda in the district of Kalahandi. It is stated that on the date of examination, i.e. on 1.3.2013 the squad party had paid a visit to the examination hall where the petitioner was appearing at the examination in the subject TLH 1st sitting and unfortunately a piece of white paper was lying in front of the petitioner and the squad party seized the said paper and compelled the petitioner to sign on the said paper and on that ground his result was cancelled. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such cancellation of result is bad in law as no opportunity of hearing has been given to him and the punishment being a punitive one, compliance of principle of natural justice is mandatory. 3. Mr. H.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Board referring to the counter affidavit submits that possession of any paper by the petitioner at the time of appearing the examination is illegal in terms of Regulation 42(c) under Section VI of Chapter X of the Board's Regulation. For ensuring discipline in the conduct of examination, the squad party was constituted for checking mal practice and since a piece of white paper was seized from the possession of the petitioner while he was appearing the Third Language Hindi Paper at D.N. Ucha Vidyapitha, Sosia, Kalahandi, on the ground of mal practice, his result was cancelled. The Board issued a notification bearing No. 3033 dated 30.4.2013, which was published in leading Oriya dailies like "The Samaj", "The Sambad" calling for representations from the candidates booked under Mal Practice, if they intend to do so, by 5.5.2013, to be heard in person and that itself is in compliance to the principle of natural justice and therefore, opportunity having been given to the petitioner, the action taken by the authorities is wholly and fully justified. 4. 4. Considering the contentions raised by the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner had appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013 from D.N. Ucha Vidyalaya, Sosia, Kalahandi and while he was appearing Third Language Hindi paper, a piece of white paper has been seized by the squad and on that basis, he was booked under mal practice. This being an individual mal practice, the compliance of principle of natural justice has to be followed in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pramila Dei v. Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack Vol. 38 (1972) CLT (FB) 349, 'OLR’ Full Bench (1972) 238 wherein this Court referring to University of Ceylon v. Fernando, (1960) 1 All England Law Reports 631 held that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed their conclusion at page 641 thus : "Their Lordships are, therefore, satisfied that the interviews, so far as they went, were fairly conducted and gave the plaintiff an adequate opportunity of stating his case. But it remains to consider whether, in the course they took, the interviews must be held to have fallen short of the requirements of natural justice on the ground that the plaintiff was given no opportunity of questioning, Miss Balasingham. She was the one essential witness against the plaintiff and the charge in the end resolved itself into a matter of her word against him. In their Lordships view, this might have been a formidable objection if the plaintiff had asked to be allowed to question Miss Balasingham and his request had been refused. But he never made any such request, although he had ample time to consider his position in the period of ten days or so between the two interviews. There is no ground for supposing that, if the plaintiff had made such a request, it would not have been granted." The aforesaid English decisions have been followed and approved as laying down good law in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanashyam Das Gupta and others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 ; State of Mysore and others v. Shivabassappa Shivappa Makapur, AIR 1963 SC 375 . The same view has been taken in Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad and others v. Bagleswar Prasad and another, AIR 1966 SC 875 without reference to any of these English decisions. 5. The following principles can be called from the aforesaid English and Supreme Court decisions: (i) The proceeding against an examinee on a charge of malpractice is a quasi-judicial proceeding. It affects his future and if any adverse view is taken by the disciplinary authority it might blast his career. Though the proceeding is administrative it is quasi judicial in nature inasmuch as the career of the examinee is in issue. (ii) Where there are statutory or codified rules the quasi-judicial proceeding will be enquired into in conformity with those rules. (iii) Where there are no such rules the principles of natural justice will be followed in making the enquiry keeping in view the fact that it involves the determination of a vital question integrally connected with the rights of the examinee. (iv) In making such enquiry the authority might have to ascertain both facts and law. (v) In doing so it must act in good faith. (vi) The authority must fairly listen to both sides. To implement these principles, the examinee will be informed about the accusation made against him together with the statement of the allegations on which they were based. He should also get reasonable opportunity of stating his own case by way of explanation to the charges. 6. Further, this Court in Pramatha Kumar Mishra v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another, 2002 (I) OLR 361 this Court in paragraph 4 has held as follows : "It is well settled that in case of individual malpractice show-cause notice is required to be given to the concerned candidate and principles of natural justice are to be followed before awarding any punishment. The Board has shown total disregard to basic principles of natural justice and fair play in its action." The well settled principles are being followed time and again. 7. As it appears from the counter filed on behalf of the Board, mere publishing in the newspaper calling upon the students booked under mal practice to file representations cannot be construed to be compliance of principle of natural justice. 8. While calling upon to file representation, the petitioner has been debarred to appear at the examination as a major of punishment. 8. While calling upon to file representation, the petitioner has been debarred to appear at the examination as a major of punishment. From this conduct of the Board, it appears that the Board has prejudged the matter and therefore, it cannot be construed that there is compliance of principle of natural justice. 9. For the reasons as aforesaid, the action of the Board in cancelling the result of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. The Board is directed to publish the result of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.