our inspection. We have perused the answer papers and
compared the handwritings. It is exfacie clear that the
handwritings in two parts of the same answer papers are
not of the same person and they are necessarily of two
different persons. They are so different that by barely
looking at them it would be clear that they are the
handwritings of two different persons and, therefore, it
is not necessary to send them to the handwriting expert
merely the because the petitioners insist that they
should be sent to the handwriting expert. We are
satisfied that the answer papers in respect of each of
the petitioner are written by two different persons and
the handwritings at two different places in the same
answer paper are different. Learned counsel then
submitted that the punishment of debarring the
petitioners for three years was excessive and
exorbitant. The punishment is basically in accordance
with the rules which provide for debarring for a period
of three years. We notice that the conduct of the
petitioners is far from satisfactory. Not only there
was a malpractice in the examination, but after the show
cause notice, each of the petitioner insisted that the
handwriting on each of the paper was their own and the
answer papers did not contain two different
handwritings.
