9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Power and Authority of the Standing Committee. 2. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice. 3. Standard of Proof in Domestic Enquiries. 4. Validity of Punishment Rules. Summary: 1. Power and Authority of the Standing Committee: The Supreme Court examined whether the Standing Committee of the Divisional Board had the power u/s 19 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act of 1965 to deal with cases of unfair means. The Court held that the Standing Committee, being an integral part of the Divisional Board, acted on behalf of the Divisional Board and was not a delegate. The Standing Committee was empowered to take final decisions regarding the use of unfair means at the final examinations, as per the Act and Regulations. 2. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: The Court addressed the contention that the enquiry process was unfair due to the absence of legal representation for the students and the lack of detailed reasons in the enquiry reports. It was held that the enquiry was conducted fairly, providing students with sufficient opportunity to inspect documents and submit explanations. The absence of legal representation was not considered a violation of natural justice, as the regulations specifically excluded such assistance. The Court found that the enquiry reports, despite being concise, were valid as they were based on the admissions made by the students regarding the tampering of marks. 3. Standard of Proof in Domestic Enquiries: The Court clarified that strict rules of evidence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases, do not apply to domestic enquiries. The standard of proof in such cases is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can be sufficient to establish facts in domestic enquiries. The Court concluded that the evidence on record supported the finding that the fabrication of moderators' mark-sheets was done at the behest of the examinees or their parents/guardians. 4. Validity of Punishment Rules: The Court examined the validity of the punishment rules prescribed in Appendix 'A' to the resolution, which indicated the maximum penalties for various offences. It was held that the rules were not invalid merely because they prescribed maximum penalties. The disciplinary authority retained discretion to impose lesser penalties depending on the nature and gravity of the misconduct. The Court upheld the impugned notification dated August 31, 1990, subject to modifications allowing certain candidates to appear in the ensuing examination and declaring the untampered results of specific candidates. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the notification dated August 31, 1990, with modifications. The Court directed the Board to conduct an in-depth investigation into the fabrication racket and bring the culprits to justice. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
