Judgment :- 1. This is the third round of the writ proceedings in respect of certain actions taken against the petitioner, a student of the Government Victoria College, Palghat, by its Principal and the Members of the College Council. The first of these series was O. P. No. 1683 of 1966 filed by the petitioner to quash the order of detention passed on him by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner had resorted to mal¬practice during the annual examination held for the First Year B. Sc. Course in April 1966. The writ petition was dismissed in the first instance by a learned judge of this Court. Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966 against the said decision was allowed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice (vide 1967 KLT. 97). In allowing the appeal and quashing the order of detention it was made clear that fresh steps against the petitioner in accordance with law were not barred, and that in the mean time lest the petitioner should lose the benefit of one year, it was imperative that he be permitted to attend the 2nd year Degree Course and continue his studies. It was also made clear that such attendance will not confer any right on the petitioner in case it is found that he is guilty and liable to the punishment. 2. The second round of proceedings opened with a fresh charge issued by the Principal against the petitioner, that he had not secured the requisite marks for promotion to the Second Year B. Sc. from the First Year Course and was liable to be detained on that account. This was followed by a fresh order of detention with a concession to sit for another examination on a date fixed. As the petitioner did not sit for the examination he was ordered to be expelled. This order of expulsion was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No: 4514 of 1966. Before my learned brother Govindan Nair J. who heard the writ petition, the Principal agreed to withdraw the proceedings which resulted in the detention of the petitioner and his subsequent expulsion. It was therefore directed that these proceedings will be ignored. This order of expulsion was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No: 4514 of 1966. Before my learned brother Govindan Nair J. who heard the writ petition, the Principal agreed to withdraw the proceedings which resulted in the detention of the petitioner and his subsequent expulsion. It was therefore directed that these proceedings will be ignored. The question as to whether proceedings should be commenced against the petitioner in respect of the charge of mal-practice which was the subject-matter of Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966, (and which by now had crystallised into insertion of previously prepared answer papers in the Inorganic Chemistry answer book) was debated in the judgment thus: ["As to whether the proceedings commenced by the issue of the charge sheet Ext. P2 must be pursued is a matter for the respondent to decide. If he decides to conduct an enquiry the enquiry will be conducted by Shri P. Gopalan Nair, Professor of Malayalam as agreed to by either side. It is also agreed that h; is a person who had nothing to do with this matter and is in no way incompetent to conduct the enquiry. If such an enquiry is to be held, it will be held on the 25th January 1967, commencing at 10 A. M. in the office of Shri P. Gopalan Nair. The information regarding any material which would be relied on and copies of records, if any, will be given to the petitioner on or before the 20ih of this month. A list of the witnesses to be examined will also be furnished. Such of the documents, copies of which cannot be furnished must be made available for inspection at the office of the enquiry officer Shri P. Gopalan Nair, on Monday the 23rd between hours that will be notified by Shri P. Gopalan Nair. The inspection to take place in the presence of Shri P. Gopalan Nair. After the enquiry a report will be drawn up by Shri P. Gopalan Nair entering his findings on the charge and this will be sent to the Principal on or before the 26th January. The College Council will consider this report and pass appropriate orders on or before the 28th of this month. After the enquiry a report will be drawn up by Shri P. Gopalan Nair entering his findings on the charge and this will be sent to the Principal on or before the 26th January. The College Council will consider this report and pass appropriate orders on or before the 28th of this month. If the petitioner is found not guilty, he will be allowed to continue his studies from the 30th January in the Second Year B. Se, In that event necessary exemption condoning lack of attendance, if any, arising out of absence of the petitioner from the class because of his original detention and the present explusion will be granted to him." Ext. PI is a copy of the judgment in O. P. No. 4514 of 1966. Sri. Gopalan Nair detailed for enquiry by the above order, was not however available to conduct the enquiry. By Ext. P2 order fresh directions were accordingly issued as follows: "It is agreed now by the parties to the original petition that the enquiry may be conducted by Smt. Anna Vareed, Professor of Zoology. She will therefore conduct the enquiry in her office commencing at 10 A.M. on the 21st February 1967. The information regarding any material which would be relied on and the copies of records, if any, will be given to the petitioner on or before the 17th February. A list of the witnesses to be examined will also be furnished before the date. Such of the documents, copies of which cannot be furnished, must be made available for inspection by the petitioner at the office of the Enquiry Officer on Saturday the 18th February 1967. The Inspection will take place in the presence of the officer directed to conduct the enquiry. After the enquiry, the report of the officer together with the findings will be placed before the College Council and the College Council will consider the report and findings and pass appropriate orders." After the enquiry and report contemplated above, the petitioner was served with Ext. P3 memo by the Principal stating that the College Council had considered the report and findings of Smt. Anna Vareed and had recommended to the Principal that the petitioner be punished with detention in the First Year B. Sc. P3 memo by the Principal stating that the College Council had considered the report and findings of Smt. Anna Vareed and had recommended to the Principal that the petitioner be punished with detention in the First Year B. Sc. at the end of the academic year 1965-66, that in view of the special circumstances of the case, he be deemed to have been re-admitted to the First Year Class during 1966-67, provided he applies in writing to the Principal for re-enrolment in the First Year before 24th April 67, and that his promotion from First B. Sc. class to second B. Sc. at the end of 1965-67 shall be based on his performance in an examination in optional subjects only, to be conducted in the re-opening week in June 1967. These recommendations of the College Council were accepted by the Principal and an order in terms of the recommendations was passed. Ext. P3 memo dated 28-3-1966 is a copy of the said order. This third round of the writ proceedings is to quash, this order. 3. After admission of this writ petition on 7-4-1967, by interim order in C. M. P. No. 2776 of 1967 of the same date, my learned brother Isaac J. ordered as follows: "Notice. The petitioner will be provisionally allowed to sit for the ensuing University Examination. The 1st respondent, the Principal of the College is directed to take all necessary action in this respect as if the order Ext. P3 dated 28-3-1967 were not issued. To this extent, the operation of Ext. P3 is suspended." Again on 31-5-1967, my learned brother ordered as follows: "Heard the petitioner's counsel again. The counter petitioner, the Principal of the College is directed to permit the petitioner to attend the 3rd Year Class until further orders from this Court." The above interim orders have continued to operate till date. The result is that the punishment meted out to the petitioner by Ext. P3 memo, remained suspended, and if this writ petition were to fail, it would be impossible to give effect to what I may call the ameliorative portions of Ext. P3 memo, as the time for applying for re-enrolment in the 1st Year and for taking an examination in optional subjects, for promotion from the Second Year, as envisaged therein has run out. P3 memo, as the time for applying for re-enrolment in the 1st Year and for taking an examination in optional subjects, for promotion from the Second Year, as envisaged therein has run out. It is to be noted that pending proceedings started against him in respect of mal-practice at the annual examinations for the first Year B. Sc. Class in April 1966, the petitioner has sailed into the Second Year Class, and again into the Third Year Class and has been allowed to write the University examinations to be held at the end of the Third Year. 4. It may also be noted that the Ist respondent to this writ petition is described as Sri. P. S. Raghavan, Principal, Government Victoria College, Palghat. The personal element in the description is apparently in view of the mala fides and bias, attributed to him by the petitioner. Sri. Raghavan is no longer the Principal of the Government Victoria College, Palghat. At the hearing of this writ petition, he was, according to the counter-affidavit filed by him, "a member of the Government College, Madappally." 5. The petitioner's counsel urged several grounds in support of this writ petition; that there was violation of the principles of natural justice; that the proceedings were vitiated by bias and mala fides; and that the punishment of detention ordered by Ext. P3 memo, is not authorised by any law or rule. 6. Violation of the principles of natural justice was alleged on the ground that the petitioner was denied the assistance of counsel at the enquiry, that the enquiry report and even the gist of it was not disclosed to him and that after the submission of the enquiry report the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against guilt and punishment. I have no hesitation in repelling the complaint based on denial of counsel. In domestic enquiries of this type, the petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right to assistance of counsel. As pointed out by the Government Pleader, there is nothing to show that he demanded the assistance of Counsel at the enquiry. 7. It is true that the enquiry-report or even the substance thereof, was not communicated to the petitioner and that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity for explanation after submission of the enquiry report. As pointed out by the Government Pleader, there is nothing to show that he demanded the assistance of Counsel at the enquiry. 7. It is true that the enquiry-report or even the substance thereof, was not communicated to the petitioner and that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity for explanation after submission of the enquiry report. But, as pointed out by the Government Pleader, it is not possible to forget the background and the circumstance, under which the enquiry was directed. The orders of this Court (Exts. P1 and P2) not only fixed the personnel of the enquiry but also detailed with care the procedure to be followed at the enquiry and the manner in which it was to be conducted. Even the time schedule had been fixed by this Court. With reference to Exts. P1 and P2 the Government Pleader contended that there was no obligation to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner although many other matters of detail had been dealt with in these orders. There is force in the argument. That aspect apart, the question how far an omission to furnish the enquiry-report or the gist of it to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice falls to be considered. 8. In University of Kerala v. Suresh Kashi George ILR.1968 (1) Kerala 75 a Division Bench of this Court after surveying the authorities observed: "It is not a principle of natural justice that in every case where an enquiry is conducted by an inquiring officer a copy of the report of the enquiry should be given to the student. If he knew the case and the evidence against him, and was given a fair opportunity to correct and contradict them, then the requirements of natural justice are satisfied. In the absence of a statutory rule we do not think that the supply of a copy of the report to the writ petitioner was an essential requirement of natural justice. It is not alleged that, any material which was not disclosed at the enquiry was used for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion. The ultimate finding of the enquiring officer was communicated to the delinquent by the Vice-Chancellor by the show cause notice. The delinquent filed a representation against the provisional finding in the show cause notice in his favour and explained the evidence and circumstances against him. The ultimate finding of the enquiring officer was communicated to the delinquent by the Vice-Chancellor by the show cause notice. The delinquent filed a representation against the provisional finding in the show cause notice in his favour and explained the evidence and circumstances against him. Before he filed the representation, he never complained to the University that he should be given a copy of the report in order to prepare his re-representation. No doubt, in the representation he stated that unless a copy of the report is given it is not possible for him to explain fully. Whatever that might be if there is a principle of natural justice that a copy of the report should be given to a delinquent student when he is asked to show cause, then it was necessary to have observed it." On the facts of that case it was ruled that natural justice was not contravened. In the present case, it is not without significance that neither Ext. P1 nor Ext. P2 orders envisaged that a copy of the enquiry report or even the gist of it should be furnished to the petitioner although many other matters of detail were referred to. By Ext. P3 memo, the petitioner was informed that the College Council recommended that the petitioner be punished with detention in the 1st year B. Sc. Class. It is impossible to believe that this was not sufficient notice to the petitioner as to the nature of the enquiry report or at least of the decision by the College Council in respect thereof. In matters of this type, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Principal or the College Council with a request for a copy of the enquiry report and for an opportunity for making a further representation in the light thereof, if necessary. Instead of that, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the writ petition on 6-4-1967. The Government Pleader also pointed out that there is enough to show that the petitioner was aware of the nature and contents of the enquiry report. Instead of that, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the writ petition on 6-4-1967. The Government Pleader also pointed out that there is enough to show that the petitioner was aware of the nature and contents of the enquiry report. He drew my attention to Para.15 of the petition, wherein it is stated: "It was however learnt that the Commissioner had found and reported that the charge made against the petitioner was not made out, and hence he could not be found guilty." In the circumstances, I cannot accede to the petitioner's contention that the non-supply of the enquiry report or at least the gist thereof to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice. 9. The petitioner's counsel strongly commented on the use of the double negative in Para.10 of the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent that: "It is submitted that the enquiry officer has not found that the petitioner is not guilty." The comment was that even in the counter-affidavit there was no clear and specific averment as to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Para.10 of the counter-affiidavit was only in answer to the allegations in Para.20 of the petition. Before me the enquiry officer's report produced from the files by the Government Pleader was read out by the petitioner's counsel and again by the Government Pleader. The former maintained that the finding was in favour of the petitioner, and the latter, to the contrary. But the College Council, which considered the report found the petitioner guilty. 10. The charge of bias and mala fides against the 1st respondent does not impress me. The petitioner's counsel relied on Exts. P10 and P11, filed along with the reply affidavit. These are copies of the affidavits of the student-Chairman of the College Union, and of its Secretary who interceded with the Principal to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. According to these affidavits, the Principal swore vengeance against the petitioner and stated that even if he will lose his job, he would not allow the petitioner to continue his studies in the college. Granted that these affidavits disclose the correct state of fact, it is not to be forgotten that Exts. P1 and P2 orders of this Court left it to the College Council to consider and report on the findings of the enquiry officer and pass appropriate orders. Granted that these affidavits disclose the correct state of fact, it is not to be forgotten that Exts. P1 and P2 orders of this Court left it to the College Council to consider and report on the findings of the enquiry officer and pass appropriate orders. The College Council consisted of the Principal and the Heads of Departments and professors of the College It was submitted by the Government Pleader that the enquiry report was considered on 16-3-1967 by sixteen members of the College Council, and 13 of them, resolved to find the petitioner guilty and to readmit him to the 1st Year and to an examination for promotion from the 2nd Year as stated in Ext. P3 Memo while the remaining three were neutral. To a domestic enquiry such as in the present case, the principle stated in T. P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria A.I.R. 1963 S.C.I 144 is particularly apposite. It was observed: " The argument that the members of the Lodge were both the prosecutors and the judges, and therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated has not much force in the context of the present enquiry. We are dealing with a case of a Lodge and not with that of a tribunal or a court. It is true that the earlier resolution Ext P14. shows that 11 members of the Lodge ware not well disposed towards the appellant; but here we are concerned with the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Notice of the complaint was given to all the members of the Lodge. It may be that some of them did not like the appellant and one of them is the complainant himself. But 22 members of the Lodge met and unanimously held, after considering the complaint and the answer given by the appellant that he was guilty. If the appellant had any objection for one or some of the members taking part in the meeting, he could have raised an objection, but he did not do so. The rules governing tribunals and courts cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to such bodies as Lodges. We have to see broadly in the circumstances of each case whether the principles of natural justice have been applied. The rules governing tribunals and courts cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to such bodies as Lodges. We have to see broadly in the circumstances of each case whether the principles of natural justice have been applied. In the circumstances of this case, particularly when we find that the appellant had not raised any objection, we cannot say that the resolution passed by the Lodge Victoria is bad for violating any principles of natural justice." 10. The petitioner was a party to Exts. P1 and P2 orders which directed the matter to be dealt with by the College Council and the petitioner cannot pretend that he was unaware that the 1st respondent was a member of the College Council. 11. It was contended that the punishment of detention could be warranted in the one and only case provided for in Chapter XXV, R.3 (e) of the University Ordinances which provides: "3 (e) No student Who has not obtained the minimum marks prescribed for sessional work, shall be promoted to the next higher class or presented for the University Examinations" I am unable to go the whole hog with the petitioner's counsel and to infer from the above provision that a punishment of detention cannot be imposed except as provided in the above rule. The orders of this Court had authorised the College Council to consider the findings of the Enquiry Commissioner in regard to the petitioner's mal-practice and pass "appropriate orders". I cannot hold in the circumstances that the punishment ordered by Ext. P3 was unjustified or illegal. Nor can I countenance the argument that the Ext. P3 memo was a mere subterfuge for re-introducing the very punishment of detention in the 1st Year B. Sc. and expulsion from the College, which could not stand scrutiny before this Court in O. P. No. 4514 of 1966, and which were therefore withdrawn by the 1st respondent. The fundamental difference, as I see it, is that the detention and expulsion on the earlier occasion were on an appraisal of the petitioner's performance in the 1st year Examination, de hors any mal-practice therein, whereas the present punishment is rooted in the charge of mal-practice. 12. I see no ground to interfere. The time-limit specified in Ext. P3 memo for re-admission to the 1st Year Course and for taking a special examination for promotion from the second Year Course has expired. 12. I see no ground to interfere. The time-limit specified in Ext. P3 memo for re-admission to the 1st Year Course and for taking a special examination for promotion from the second Year Course has expired. For this the petitioner might well thank himself. Prudence should have counselled the petitioner to apply for re-enrolment in the first Year B. Se. Class and to take the examination for promotion from the second Year Class within the time-limits mentioned in Ext. P3 while asking for stay of the order of detention. This might have avoided the present impasse. As it is, the petitioner may well approach the Principal of the College, and, if necessary, the College Council, with a request for a fresh opportunity for formal re-admission to the first Year B. Sc. Class and for taking a special Examination for promotion from the second Year B. Sc. Class. For myself I shall not set a premium on the petitioner's proved mal-practice at the annual examinations in the 1st Year B. Sc. Class by winking at the same in view of his subsequent promotion to the second Year and his having written the University Examination in the third Year B. Sc. Course. 13. I dismiss this writ petition, but make no order as to costs. Issue carbon copies to counsel.