JUDGMENT : Ray, J. - These three applications have been filed by three students against the Utkal University represented by its Registrar for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mahdamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders calling upon them to show cause as to why Notification No. C-11.4779 dated 20th July 1967, of the University Syndicate penalising them for having taken recourse to unfair means at the Annual Examination of the First Year Degree course in Commerce and cancelling their results for the said examination and debarring them from appearing at any of the examinations prior to the Annual University Examination of 1968, shall not be quashed. 2. As all the three applicants were affected by the above common notification of the University Syndicate and the reliefs claimed in all the three petitions are the same on the common grounds urged on their behalf, all these applications were heard together analogously and will be governed by this common judgment. 3. The Petitioner in O.J.C. 190/67 is one Dilip Kumar Ganguly, the Petitioner in O.J.C. 191/67 is one Asok Kumar Ganatra and the Petitioner in O.J.C. 230 of 1967 is one P.V. Raman Rao. 4. The Petitioners in O.J.C. 190/67 and 230/67 were students of the First Year Degree Course in Commerce of the Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, while the Petitioner in O.J.C. 190/67 was a student of Bhadrak College undergoing the same course of study, and all of them were candidates sitting for the 1st Year Degree examination in Commerce held by the Utkal University, commencing from the 10th March 1957, in the old Assembly Hall within the premises of the Ravenshaw College, which was the centre for the said examination. There were also many other candidates appearing for the said examination alongwith the present Petitioners. The first day of the examination passed off smoothly and the second day, that is, 11th March 1967, was fixed for the examination of English paper and it also passed off in peaceful background without any untoward incident. The result of this examination was announced on 3rd July 1967, when the names of successful candidates were published ill a list affixed to the notice board of the University along side a second list publishing the names of candidates whose results had been withheld. The result of this examination was announced on 3rd July 1967, when the names of successful candidates were published ill a list affixed to the notice board of the University along side a second list publishing the names of candidates whose results had been withheld. The present Petitioners found their names to have been listed in the second list withholding their results, at about noon that day. Thereafter, the same day, the Petitioners received notices containing some charges against them and alleging adoption of malpractice and unfair means at the aforesaid examination and to show cause why their results should not be cancelled. The specific charges in the said notice were as follows. It is reported by the Examiner in English for the Annual 1st Year Degree in Commerce Examination that your answer to question No. 4 (Precis) is identical to the answer to question No. 4 (Precis) of 28 other candidates at the same centre. It therefore appears that you have copied the same from anyone of them. That you have contravened Rule 6 of the Rules prescribed by the University printed on the backside of your admit card. The Petitioners were caned upon to show cause on or before 10-7-1967 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. 5. Rule 6 of the Rules, contravention of which was the gravamen of the charge in the aforesaid notice runs as follows: (6) Candidates are not permitted to talk to each other in the Examination Hall. No one should receive help from or assist another in any manner. 6. Replies to the aforesaid show-cause notices were despatched by the Petitioners in due course. The Petitioners in O.J.C. 190 and 191 sent their replies on the 6th July and the Petitioner in O.J.C. 230 of 1967 sent his reply on the 7th July 1967, which form Annexure 'C' to their respective Petitioners. 6. Replies to the aforesaid show-cause notices were despatched by the Petitioners in due course. The Petitioners in O.J.C. 190 and 191 sent their replies on the 6th July and the Petitioner in O.J.C. 230 of 1967 sent his reply on the 7th July 1967, which form Annexure 'C' to their respective Petitioners. The defence set forth by these Petitioners though couched in different is substantially the same, viz, that they were taking their coaching in English from the late Professor Girija Shankar Ray and he had dictated some model answers of which answer, to question No. 4 (Precis) is one and as the precis question carried substantial mark, they had all committed the model answer to memory and all of them had independently tried to answer the question on that model and this explains the close identity of their answers. The model answer of the late professor was also circulated among the students other than those who were being coached by him and that may be the reasonable explanation of many other students or candidates having reproduced similar answers. 7. The examiner of this paper was struck by the identity of the answers to question No. 4 submitted by these Petitioners as well as 25 other candidates, and suspecting that there was a large scale mal-practice and adoption of unfair means he reported the matter to the Registrar of' the Utkal University. The Registrar referred the matter to the Conducting Board of Examiners who after holding a preliminary enquiry submitted their report to the Syndicate and thereafter the aforesaid charges were framed and served on the Petitioners as already recounted. 8. The common ground urged on behalf of all the Petitioners is that adequate opportunity had not been aforesaid to the Petitioners to put forth their case and as such the principles of natural justice had been violated and that the order of the Syndicate cancelling their results and debarring them from appearing in future examinations for a period of one year is erroneous on the face of it, because the order is based on no evidence of mal-practice or adoption of unfair means. 9. 9. The first ground of the Petitioners being deprived of adequate opportunity to put forth their case, is 'linked up with the contention that the charge as framed against the Petitioners is so vague and nebulous that it has seriously prejudiced them in that they being unaware of the specific charge, were not able to make their defence definite and sufficient. 10. Rule 6 of the Rules printed on the reverse of the Admit Card, breach: of which is the subject matter of the charge prohibits three things viz., (a) candidates shall not! talk with each other in the examination hall; (b) one candidate shall not receive help from another; and (c) no candidates shall assist any other candidate in any manner. - The show cause notice while quoting Rule 6 as the subject-matter of the charge, does not state the precise manner of its breach. All that it asked the Petitioners was to confine their defence to only one ingredient of Rule 6, that is, no one should receive any help from any other candidate, in any manner and the manner of reception of help was specified in the notice to be by copying. No indication was given in the notice as to the identity of the other candidates from whom the Petitioners are said to have copied their answers and that while alleging that 28 other candidates at the same centre seemed to have given identical answers to question No. 4, the identity of these candidates was kept concealed from the Petitioners while calling upon them to answer the charge. 11. It appears from the counter filed by the University that the plea of the Petitioners was not accepted as reasonably true and the Syndicate's decision as to the adoption of unfair means by the Petitioners appears to be grounded upon a large number of identical mistakes committed commonly by all the:!8 candidates, in their answers to question No. 4 and the enquiry report of the Conducting Board. Thus, in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners had taken recourse to unfair means, the Syndicate had obviously utilised certain pieces of evidence afforded by the answers of 28 unnamed candidates mentioned in the show-cause notice and the enquiry report and the materials disclosed therein, without placing the same before the Petitioners or confronting them with the same for any possible rebuttal or plausible explanation. It also appears from the counter filed by the University that the Conducting Board made a preliminary enquiry and on the results of such enquiry they made their recommendations to the Syndicate which were ultimately accepted by that body. The nature and manner of enquiry held by the Conducting Board of Examiners or the nature of evidence considered by the Syndicate to arrive at their decision, It is well-settled that it is the bounden duty of all quasi-judicial tribunals to place all matters which swayed their judgment for the explanation of the delinquents before they can be penalised. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the University, on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and Others, that normally it is within the jurisdiction of domestic tribunals like educational institutions to set up enquiry committees to deal with problems posed by adoption of unfair means by candidates and to decide all questions in the light of evidence adduced before them; and the courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the domestic tribunals appointed by educational institutions like the Universities and in dealing with the validity of impugned orders of Universities under Article 266 the High Court is not expected to sit in appeal over the decision in question. 12. It is true that all that have been said in the decision quoted above, have been urged by the learned Counsel for the University; but it has also been held there that the High Court must be satisfied that the impugned order of the University is based upon evidence and that the students against whom charges have been framed have been afforded ample opportunity to defend themselves and the tribunals in holding such enquiries must scrupulously follow the rules of natural justice. 13. The adoption of unfair means as alleged in the instant case could have been effected in three ways, viz., (i) by copying from the answer-book of another; (ii) by allowing their own answers to be copied by others; and (iii) all the candidates having copied from a common source. 13. The adoption of unfair means as alleged in the instant case could have been effected in three ways, viz., (i) by copying from the answer-book of another; (ii) by allowing their own answers to be copied by others; and (iii) all the candidates having copied from a common source. The show-cause notice containing the charge of breach of Rule 6 called upon the Petitioners to confine their explanation to only one of the ways, viz., that they had copied from 28 other unnamed candidates who were also taking their examination in the same hall. They were not called upon to meet the other two ways through which unfair means could also have been adopted, and that was probably because the Conducting Board as well as the Syndicate felt satisfied that unfair means could not have been adopted by the other candidates; or that all the candidates could not have copied from a common source and that it were only the Petitioners who had copied from some one of the 28 other unnamed candidates. So when we consider the charge narrowed down as above, and when we consider that candidates of different colleges were sitting for the said examination in the said hall along with the Petitioners, and when there is no evidence as to the sitting arrangement of the examinees in the hall, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the Petitioners had any opportunity for adopting the alleged unfair means. The omission in the charge to specify the other candidates from whom these Petitioners are said to have copied or the proved facts from which inference of copying has been drawn, has caused such vagueness in the charge that the Petitioners have suffered serious prejudice thereby as they have been driven to a roving defence visualising all manner and possibilities of copying and to present their defence against every such possibility. As stated above, the Conducting Board made a preliminary enquiry and submitted its report to the Syndicate. The Syndicate while framing the charge quoted above, did not disclose either material facts, if any, elicited in the preliminary enquiry or any other facts which independently came to their notice which led them to hold that a prima facie case for framing the charge had been made out. The Syndicate while framing the charge quoted above, did not disclose either material facts, if any, elicited in the preliminary enquiry or any other facts which independently came to their notice which led them to hold that a prima facie case for framing the charge had been made out. In these circumstances, it must be held that no adequate opportunity should be deemed to have been afforded to the Petitioners to meet the charge. If identity of answers is the sale basis of the charge as well as the finding of guilt by the Syndicate, then natural justice requires that all the answer papers should have been shown to the Petitioners for whatever defence they could have made out of them. In the instant case the Syndicate functioned in the role of a Judge arid before inflicting punishment on the Petitioners, they should; have disclosed to them the preliminary inquiry report of the; Conducting Board and the answer papers of all the examinees, which were pieces of evidence in the case on which their ultimate decision was based, as, such disclosure is an essential part of the right of bearing. In the recent case of Taylor v. National Union of Seamen (1967) 1 All. E.R. 767 at 776, In Kanda v. Government of Federation of Malaya L.R. (1962) A.C. 322 at 337 and 338. Lord Denning delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, consisting of himself, Lord Hodson and Lord Devlin stated: If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him; and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them Then Lord Denning referred to a number of cases and continued: It follows of course, that the Judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other. The Court will not inquire whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The Court will not go into the likelihood of prejudice. The Court will not inquire whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The Court will not go into the likelihood of prejudice. The rest of it is enough The principle of natural justice so clearly enunciated in the above case, applies with full force to the facts of the present case, and there can be no question that they have been grossly violated. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and Others have laid down the am bit within which the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 in respect of orders of Universities or Educational Boards cancelling the examination results of candidates on grounds of adoption of unfair means, may be exercised. Such jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of educational institutions is confined to cases where the impugned order appears to be erroneous on the face of it, or where the tribunals have not been fair to the students and have failed to scrupulously follow the rules of natural justice and where the students have not been given adequate opportunity to defend themselves. It has already been shown that the principles of natural justice have not been followed and that adequate opportunities have not been afforded to the students to defend themselves. 15. It is now proposed to indicate that the impugned order is also bad because it is erroneous on the face of it. The answer to question No. 4 of an the three Petitioners have been annexed as annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the counter of the opposite party in O.J.C. 230/67. (Roll No. 120) who is the Petitioner in O.J.C. 230/67. Annexure 2 is the answer of the Petitioner Dilip Kumar Ganguly (Roll No. 101) in O.J.C. No. 190/67 and Annexure 3 is the answer of the Petitioner Asok Kumar Ganatra (Roll No. 59) in O.J.C. 191/67. These annexures are as follows: Annexure-1. LAW and LIBERTY Q. No. 4. Like the old lady using the middle of the road, there is a danger in the liberty. She is charged by the police with a particular offence. But she refused to the police as it was her right and liberty to go where ever she likes in any direction of the road. LAW and LIBERTY Q. No. 4. Like the old lady using the middle of the road, there is a danger in the liberty. She is charged by the police with a particular offence. But she refused to the police as it was her right and liberty to go where ever she likes in any direction of the road. Even there is liberty preserved in man it shall have to be curtailed. Police symbol is not considered of tyrany but of liberty. Because It police man is impartial person, he will not interfere with anyone else. He is for good. He is rather considered to be a milestone. Rule of the road must be obeyed by all. Annexure-2. Q. No. 4. An old lady while walking in the middle of the road traffic obstructed her to walk while was against the rule of road. The old lady refused to the police as it was her right and liberty to go even in any direction of the road. Even there is liberty preserved in man it shall have to be curtailed. Police's symbol is not considered of tyranny but the liberty. Police man impartial person he will not interfere with anyone else. He is for public good. He is rather considered to be a maclstom. Rule of the road shall be obeyed by all. 104 words. "Annexure-3. Q. No. 4. An old lady while walking in the middle of the road traffic abstructed her to walk while was against the rule of road. The old lady refused to the policeman as it was her right and liberty to go even in any direction of the road. Even there is liberty preserved in man it shall be curtailed. Police's symbol is not considered of tyranny, but of liberty. Being a policeman, impartial person he will not interfered with any one else. He is for public good. He is rather considered to a road stone rule of the road shall to be obeyed by all. (Number of words used by me is 105) The answer of the Petitioner P.V. Raman Rao has a topical heading which is missing in the other two answers. Besides it is different in language and lacks the spelling mistakes and other language errors as are to be found in annexures 2 and 3. (Number of words used by me is 105) The answer of the Petitioner P.V. Raman Rao has a topical heading which is missing in the other two answers. Besides it is different in language and lacks the spelling mistakes and other language errors as are to be found in annexures 2 and 3. Thus, it is quite clear that there is absolutely no identity between the answer of the Petitioner in O.J.C. 230/67 with the answers of the other two Petitioners in O.J. Cs. 190 and 191/67. As between annexures 2 and 3, there appears to be a large measure of similarity, but they cannot be said to be identical word for word, inasmuch as they differ in spelling mistakes as well as in language at several places, and as the charge of copying is based on identity of answers and not no similarity, it cannot be said that the charge has been established. 16. Thus, the charge against the Petitioners that they had copied the answer to question No. 4 from 28 other candidates appear to be erroneous on the face of it and the punishment inflicted on the basis of such erroneous charge is accordingly wrong and must be set aside. We accordingly allow these petitions, quash the impugned Notification No. EC-11-4779 dated 20th July 1967, of the Syndicate of the Utkal University penalising the Petitioners. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs. Barman, C.J. 17. I agree. Final Result : Allowed