' The petitioner feels aggrieved against the order of respondent Board/Chairman by which order for an act of impersonation committed by the petitioner during the examination of Chemistry Practical, the petitioner's Matriculation result has been quashed and the Matriculation Certificate has been directed to be delivered back to the Board. It is contended that this action has been taken without prior notice and hearing.
2. In the report and parawise comments the action is justified. It is maintained that the notices were issued to the petitioner repeatedly but he did not appear in spite of the same. Copies of the notices have been attached with the comments. The impugned order was challenged in appeal by mother of the petitioner, which appeal has been rejected. On merit, it is stated that when the petitioner was caught committing the act of impersonation, he admitted the same and it was after that admission that the Superintendent forwarded the case against the petitioner.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel that case F.I.R. No,307 of 1990 was also lodged against the petitioner on the same facts but the petitioner was acquitted on 21-4-1992. The receipt of notices is denied on the ground that the petitioner left the country in October, 1998.
4. Perusal of the copies of notices, dated 22-1-1999, 18-2-1999 and 10-2-1999 attached with the comments, shows that they were addressed on the same address which is given in the present petition. The cancellation of the result was also communicated on the same address and admittedly on receipt of the communication the mother filed an appeal, copy of which is also attached. In the circumstances, the respondent Board took all the steps to apprise the petitioner of the allegation so as to enable him to defend himself. If at the appropriate time the petitioner did not enter appearance, he has to blame only himself.
5. The acquittal by the Criminal Court does not debar the Board to come to its own findings and conclusions. Both the proceedings are independent, separate and are taken within the parameters of respective laws. The acquittal by Criminal Court, therefore,. Is of no avail to the petitioner. In A any case in view of the confessional statement of the petitioner, the finding of the respondent that the petitioner has been guilty of impersonation is beyond doubt. The penalty imposed is also having the backing of law.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the maintainability of this petition, as according to him this has not been filed in an authorized manner. The petitioner is stated to be resident of Romania and the petition bears the thumb-mark of Mst. Hanifan Bibi, allegedly the mother and special attorney of the petitioner. However, copy of the power of attorney is not on the file. The objection may be correct but in view of the finding recorded on merit of the controversy, the same should not be given effect to.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed with costs.