JUDGMENT 1. In this petition, the petitioner assails communication of respondent No.1 issued vide No.F9Secy-III) B/JD/2016 dated 01.07.2016, whereby the petitioner has been warned to be careful in respect of evaluation of answer scripts. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the subsequent notification issued by respondent No.1 bearing No.F-46(Secy-UFM)B/JD/2016 dated 30.08.2016, whereby the petitioner has been debarred for ten years from the job of evaluator. 2. Brief facts, as narrated by the petitioner in this petition, which are relevant to the disposal of the writ petition, may be noticed. The petitioner retired as Senior Lecturer (10+2) English from the School Education Department in the year 2016 after rendering more than 36 years of service. The petitioner claims that during his service career as 10+2 Lecturer (English), he was assigned by respondent No.1, the marking and evaluation of answer-sheets of English papers of 10+2 examination. The petitioner claims that he performed the job of evaluator with respondent No.1 for almost twenty years and was never ever found guilty of any error, fault or negligence in the matter of marking and evaluation of mark-sheets except concerning annual examination of 2016 (10+2) functional English. It is submitted that he was assigned the job of evaluating the answer scripts of functional English of 10+2 examination annual 2016, which job, the petitioner claims, was performed by him effectively and efficiently. The petitioner, however, was surprised to receive a notice from respondent No.1 dated 02.07.2016, whereby the petitioner was intimated that on the basis of some applications received from aggrieved candidates, the answer scripts evaluated by the petitioner were reviewed by the head examiner/subject expert and it was found that during evaluation process several discrepancies/errors had been committed by the petitioner. It was also intimated to the petitioner that this omission and commission in evaluation of answer scripts by the petitioner was clearly reflective of his negligence and carelessness. Accordingly, the petitioner was warned to remain careful in future. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid communication by way of legal notice served by him through his counsel, Sh. Subash Chander Mansotra, Advocate in which he refuted all the allegations leveled against him. However, respondent No.1 without any further notice to the petitioner issued the impugned notification dated 30.08.2016 and debarred the petitioner for ten years for performing the job of evaluator with the respondent-Board. 3. Subash Chander Mansotra, Advocate in which he refuted all the allegations leveled against him. However, respondent No.1 without any further notice to the petitioner issued the impugned notification dated 30.08.2016 and debarred the petitioner for ten years for performing the job of evaluator with the respondent-Board. 3. Referring to some endorsement made on communication dated 02.07.2016, the petitioner claims that he has also been imposed penalty of Rs.10,700/- for having committed 103 marking errors in the process of evaluation. Both, the communication and the notification have been assailed by the petitioner in this petition primarily on the following grounds:- i) The impugned communication and notification are stigmatic and penal in nature and, therefore, could not have been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is claimed that no enquiry into the matter was conducted nor the petitioner was ever associated in the matter. ii) The Board is not competent to debar the petitioner for ten years from the job of evaluator, for, the statute of the Board does not confer such power upon respondent No.1. Referring to Board Rules governing Secrecy Section of Board, it is urged that the petitioner, if found guilty in a fair and free enquiry, can only be debarred/disqualified for being evaluator for a period of two to five years. 4. The respondents have entered appearance through Sh. B.S. Bali, Advocate and have filed their detailed reply refuting all the averments made in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Head Examiner for 10+2 examination in English and Functional English subject for the session 2016 for evaluation of answer scripts of the candidates. On the declaration of result, many candidates, who were not satisfied with their percentage of marks applied to the Board for re-checking of their answer scripts and in the process it was found that the petitioner had not done his job of evaluation properly, in as many as 103 mistakes were found to have been committed by the petitioner in the subject of Functional English. Having regard to the carelessness and negligence committed by the petitioner in evaluating answer scripts, the matter was referred to the Unfair Committee of the Board (UCB) for taking appropriate decision on charges of omission and commission by the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the carelessness and negligence committed by the petitioner in evaluating answer scripts, the matter was referred to the Unfair Committee of the Board (UCB) for taking appropriate decision on charges of omission and commission by the petitioner. 5. As per the Board Regulations, it is claimed that erring examiners were notified through publication in “State Time” in its edition dated 10.08.2016 and the said notice was also published in “Amar Ujala” on the same day. The erring candidates including the petitioner and other supervisory staff were asked to appear before the Unfair Means Committee for scrutiny and disposal of unfair means/misconduct cases on 16.08.2016 at 9 a.m. The petitioner was also informed telephonically to appear before the said Committee. The respondents claim that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing about the omission and commission committed by him and the petitioner fairly confessed his mistake before the Committee and submitted a written apology in this regard. It is, thus, submitted that in view of the admission by the petitioner and submission of apology, no further enquiry was called for and the allegation of the petitioner that he was not associated with the enquiry is, therefore, totally false and misconceived. 6. Relying upon the Regulations for Prevention of Unfairmeans/Misconduct in Examination of the Board, it is contended that respondent No.1 is competent to impose punishment on the erring examiner(s) for such period as the Chairman may deem appropriate. It is, thus, submitted that in exercise of powers under Regulation 16(b)(ii), the petitioner has been debarred for ten years in terms of the impugned notification. In nut shell, this is the reply by the respondent-Board. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it would be necessary to first take note of the relevant provision which empowers the Board to act in such situation. There is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has been found to be negligent and careless in the matter of evaluation of answer scripts. The evaluation of answer scripts is a very delicate and sensitive job, as it pertains to the future of students. Any negligence and carelessness in evaluation of answer scripts cannot be brushed aside lightly and has to be taken seriously. The evaluation of answer scripts is a very delicate and sensitive job, as it pertains to the future of students. Any negligence and carelessness in evaluation of answer scripts cannot be brushed aside lightly and has to be taken seriously. This exactly appears to have been done by the Board when it came to its notice that there were in as many as 103 mistakes committed by the petitioner while evaluating the answer scripts of only five candidates, who had applied for re-evaluation/rechecking etc. Taking cognizance of the omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, respondent No.1 vide impugned communication dated 02.07.2016 instructed the petitioner to be careful in future in respect of evaluation of answer scripts. It appears that initially there was no move by the Board to disqualify the petitioner for future or impose any penalty. Later on, may be, provoked by the response of the petitioner sent by way of legal notice through Sh. S.C. Mansotra, Advocate, the respondents decided to place the case of the petitioner before the Unfair Committee of the Board, which upon consideration of the matter and hearing the petitioner took a decision to disqualify the petitioner for being evaluator for ten years. I am not impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notification/order dated 30.08.2016 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Not only the petitioner was duly notified by publication in the newspaper but he appeared before the Committee, admitted his mistake and submitted written apology. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the petitioner was inflicted the disqualification in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. This brings me to the legal question as to whether the Chairman of the Board has the power to disqualify an examiner, who is found negligent and careless in evaluating answer scripts for a period of ten years and if so, under which Rules and Regulations. 9. Mr. B.S. Bali, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the power has been exercised by the Board in terms of Regulations for Prevention of Unfair means/Misconduct in Examination of the Board. He specifically relies upon Rule 16(b)(ii). From perusal of the aforesaid Rules, which are known as Regulations for Examinations, it clearly transpires that these Rules pertain to the misconduct/unfairmeans cases that may happen during the process of examination. He specifically relies upon Rule 16(b)(ii). From perusal of the aforesaid Rules, which are known as Regulations for Examinations, it clearly transpires that these Rules pertain to the misconduct/unfairmeans cases that may happen during the process of examination. The relevant Rule, relied upon by the respondents, reads as under:- “16. Action under other laws: (a) Any punishment imposed under these regulations shall not preclude a candidate or a person from any other criminal or civil liability under any law for the time being in force in the State. (b) A person who commits misconduct/uses unfair-means under these Regulations but is not a candidate for any examination shall be dealt with as under: (i) The Chairman/Secretary or any officer of the Board authorized by the Chairman/Secretary may, if he so desires, report the case to the police; (ii) In the case of teacher or a person connected with an Institution, his/her conduct shall be reported to the managing Body of the Institution and to the Government in the case of a Government Institution and shall be debarred from remunerative job in the Board for such period as the Chairman may deem appropriate.” 10. From a bare reading of the Rule 16 in its entirety, it clearly transpires that it provides for action against misconduct/use of unfair means under these regulations and in case this misconduct is committed by a teacher or a person connected with an Institution, his/her conduct is to be reported to the Managing Body of the Institution and to the Government in case of a Government Institution. It is further provided that such person shall also be debarred from remunerative job in the Board for such period as the Chairman may deem appropriate. 11. The misconduct/unfair means cases is defined in Regulation No.5. Misconduct/unfair means have been enumerated in this regulation from Clause (a) to Clause (y). From a reading of these Clauses of Regulation No.5, it clearly transpires that the negligence and carelessness in evaluating answer scripts has not been termed either “misconduct” or “unfair means” for which action is envisaged in Regulation No.16 could be taken. 12. When confronted with the aforesaid position of regulations, learned counsel appearing for the Board could not justify the impugned notification as having been issued under Regulation No.16 of the Regulations for Examinations. 13. 12. When confronted with the aforesaid position of regulations, learned counsel appearing for the Board could not justify the impugned notification as having been issued under Regulation No.16 of the Regulations for Examinations. 13. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls under the Regulations framed by the Board governing Secrecy Section of the Board and as per the Evaluation Rule, if a mistake affecting the result of a candidate is detected either by the authorities of the Board or by the result publishing committee/computing agency after declaration of the result, the examiner concerned as well as the checking assistant will be liable to be disqualified for a period of two to five years. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. Notification impugned dated 30.08.2016, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified for ten years (marking only) is quashed. The petitioner shall also not be liable to any penalty. The petitioner, was disqualified on 30th August, 2016 and has, therefore, faced the disqualification for almost two years which this Court, in the given facts and circumstances, feels is adequate punishment for the carelessness and negligence exhibited by the petitioner in evaluating the answer scripts. Needless to say that the petitioner has now retired from the service and it is for the Board to decide whether or not the services of the petitioner are to be requisitioned for evaluation purposes. The stigma of disqualification for ten years is, thus, not required to be carried by the petitioner.