JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) as also learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application is seeking a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to publish his Intermediate result. 3. It is his case that he being a regular student of I. Sc. at Bhagwan Inter School, Gogri, Khagaria appeared in the Intermediate Annual Examination in the year 2020. He was shown to have passed in 1st Division vide Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application. His grievance is that he has not been given his result and a representation made by him in this regard has not been considered. It is further submitted that from the Tabulation Register (Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application), it does not appear as to why the result of the petitioner has been withheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tabulation Register does not show the marks of the subject ‘NRB’ and it shows his result ‘withheld’. 4. By filing an interlocutory application, the petitioner is seeking quashing of letter as contained in Memo No. 85 of 2021 dated 23.01.2021 issued by the Examination Board, Patna whereby he has been debarred from taking two examinations of Intermediate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the debarment order is highly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural Justice. It is further submitted that the Invigilator, who were in the examination hall on 06.02.2020 when the examination was being conducted, did not report that the petitioner had taken away the answersheet. 6. Learned counsel submits that on 14.02.2020 only a first information report was lodged giving rise to Chitragupt Nagar P.S. Case No. 130 of 2020 against three invigilators. The police has submitted a chargesheet against them, however, this petitioner has not been chargesheeted as no material could be found against him to proceed. Learned counsel submits that under such circumstance, just to cover up the laches on the part of the invigilators, a false and flimsy allegation was made against the petitioner that he had taken away the answersheet. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. Learned counsel submits that under such circumstance, just to cover up the laches on the part of the invigilators, a false and flimsy allegation was made against the petitioner that he had taken away the answersheet. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. It is stated therein that the petitioner was the examinee of Intermediate Annual Examination, 2020 which was conducted at Koshi College, Khagaria on 06.02.2020. It is alleged that after completion of examination on the said date, the petitioner had left the examination centre retaining the original answersheet with himself. The Centre Superintendent on being apprised with the matter by the invigilator had reported the matter to the Chitragupt Nagar Police Station. 8. It is further stated that the Kadachar Janch Samiti (Misconduct Investigation Committee) of the Board on having found the said charge of misconduct against the petitioner to be true have taken a decision to cancel the petitioner’s examination of 2020 and to restrain him from participating in the next two examinations and the decision be communicated to the concerned Principal vide Memo No. 85 dated 23.01.2020. 9. The Board has relied upon Regulations 14 and 18 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964 to submit that in a case where it is found that the examination has been violated by error, improper conduct or other cases or where malpractice, fraud or act of indiscipline or use of unfair means are reported to have been practised, the Board shall have the power to cancel the examination or withhold or amend the result in such cases and to take such other actions as it may deem fit. 10. In course of hearing, this Court called upon, learned counsel for the Board to say as to whether the invigilators had reported missing of the answersheet of the petitioner on 06.02.2020. The answer is that the invigilators reported the missing of the answersheet on 07.02.2020. This Court further wanted to know as to how the petitioner was shown to have passed in 1st Division vide Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application. Learned counsel for the Board submits that in this regard, the Board has not given any instruction. Thirdly, this Court wanted to know as to whether before passing the order of debarment, the petitioner was given any opportunity to show cause or defend himself. Learned counsel for the Board submits that in this regard, the Board has not given any instruction. Thirdly, this Court wanted to know as to whether before passing the order of debarment, the petitioner was given any opportunity to show cause or defend himself. Learned counsel for the Board submits that no show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on the record, this Court finds that admittedly on 06.02.2020 which was the date of examination, no complaint was made by the invigilators regarding missing of the answersheet. Subsequently, an information to this effect is said to have given on 07.02.2020 and thereafter a first information report was lodged but the police has not found any material against this petitioner to proceed against, rather the invigilators have been booked for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Board has though passed the order of debarment against the petitioner but no show cause was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was deprived of defending himself. 12. In such circumstance, this Court finds that the manner in which the Board has approached this issue is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Debarment of a student for a period of two years without giving any opportunity of hearing to him is completely uncalled for and is in conflict with the principle of fair play in action. Under what circumstances, the answersheet of the petitioner went missing was required to be examined at the level of the Board also but that has not been done. 13. In the facts of this case, the order of debarment has though lived its life but to remove the stigma against the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the order of debarment on the ground of its being in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in action. 14. This Court directs the Chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board to conduct an in-house inquiry into the matter, provide appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry and based on the inquiry report, an appropriate decision be taken. 14. This Court directs the Chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board to conduct an in-house inquiry into the matter, provide appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry and based on the inquiry report, an appropriate decision be taken. If it is found that the answersheet of the petitioner has gone missing from the possession of the invigilators, appropriate decision shall be taken by the Chairman of the Board to publish the result of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions, if any available with the Board to deal with such situation. Such inquiry be conducted and completed within a period of three months from today. 15. In any case, since the petitioner has already suffered because of the debarment order, the Board shall not pass any order which may further affect the career of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the next examination, if he so desires. 16. Even though this Court has found that the debarment order is in violation of principles of natural justice, at this stage this Court is not awarding any compensation because an inquiry into the matter has been ordered. The issue of compensation is left open. 17. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.