Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J. :- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Executive Council of the Gauhati University (briefly the University) debarring the petitioner from appearing in any University examination until 1974. 2. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part II examination, 1971, of the University from the North Gauhati College. The examination commenced on 10th May, 1971 with English Paper II. He sat for History Paper II on 17th May, 1971 and for History Paper III on 18th May, 1971. The next two papers, Political Science Papers II and III, were taken on 20th May, 1971 and 21st May, 1971 respectively. The petitioner appeared in all the papers. When the results of the aforesaid examination were declared on 8th August, 1971, the petitioners result was withheld and the same was noted as such against his Roll No. 2109. The petitioner then requested the University to announce his result. The University, however, on 17th August, 1971 asked him to show cause and informed him as follows : "Your result has been kept withheld on a confidential report that you had inserted answers written from outside in History Paper II at the above examination. You are to show cause why you will not be liable for appropriate action for the above charges. Any explanation you may like to offer may be submitted on or before 6th September, 1971." 3. The petitioner, on 19th August, 1971, denied the allegations completely and requested the University to furnish him with the copies of the following documents in order to meet the charge made against him. "(a) Any report or complaint, if any, from any quarter alleging that answers written from outside were inserted. (b) Any order passed by the Controller or any authority on the report/complaint, as stated in sub-para (a) above. (c) Order for the withholding of my result, passed by the Controller or any other authority." He further submitted in his explanation as follows : "I intend to inspect my answer script for History (Paper II). The inspection is very essential in order to ascertain as to whether there is any tampering with the scripts which I submitted. (c) Order for the withholding of my result, passed by the Controller or any other authority." He further submitted in his explanation as follows : "I intend to inspect my answer script for History (Paper II). The inspection is very essential in order to ascertain as to whether there is any tampering with the scripts which I submitted. The answer scripts may be shown to me for inspection in presence of some officer of the University and I may be allowed to take relevant notes of the answer scripts." He further added that without copies of the above documents and without inspection of the answer scripts of History Paper II, it was not possible for him "to say anything more beyond denying the allegations". He reserved his right to submit further explanation after receipt of the documents and after inspection of the answer script. He concluded his explanation as follows : "So it is prayed that the allegation against me may be dropped as (sic) my result may be published. If however the University does not decide to drop the allegation, then I may be furnished with the copies of the documents mentioned in para (4) above and I may be allowed to inspect the answer script and to take note of the same. I further pray that I want to be heard in person and I shall cross-examine the witnesses, if any, who may give evidence against me." 4. The Registrar, in the counter-affidavit before this Court, stated as follows : "......I beg to state that on examination of the petitioners answer script in History Paper II, the examiner of the paper Prof. Arun Barua, Head of the Department of History, Cotton College, found the answers to questions Nos. 2 and 7 highly doubtful and to have been supplied from outside. Accordingly the examiner passed the following remark in the answer script "Answer to Questions Nos. 2 and 7 are highly doubtful. Those might have been supplied from outside." The matter was thoroughly checked up by the Head Examiner Dr. H. K. Barpujari, Professor and Head of the Department of History, Gauhati University and he was satisfied that the answers to the said questions were written outside and subsequently pinned up in the answer script. 2 and 7 are highly doubtful. Those might have been supplied from outside." The matter was thoroughly checked up by the Head Examiner Dr. H. K. Barpujari, Professor and Head of the Department of History, Gauhati University and he was satisfied that the answers to the said questions were written outside and subsequently pinned up in the answer script. The Head Examiner passed the following remark "I endorse the views of the Examiner." The matter was then taken up by the Zonal Officer Dr. Narahari Das, Professor and Head of the Department of Agri-Botany, Gauhati University who also being satisfied with the views, referred the matter to the Controller of Examination with following note "Forwarded to the Controller of Examinations for necessary actions". The Controller of Examination scrutinised the matter thoroughly and found that the petitioner subsequently inserted and pinned up the 4 leaves in the answer script which contained the answers to Questions Nos. 2 and 7. The Controller thereafter examined the other 2 answer scripts of the petitioner viz., the History Paper III and Political Science Paper III and found that in those 2 answer scripts also he subsequently inserted papers containing answers to questions. In History Paper III also he inserted 4 leaves containing answers to Questions Nos. 10 and 9. In Political Science Paper III the petitioner inserted 4 leaves containing answers to Questions No. 1 and No. 8. All these answers subsequently inserted were found to be written at different sitting i.e. not in the sitting in the examination hall. In some of the writing ink was also found to be different. The Controller of Examination being fully satisfied that the petitioner adopted unfair means in the examination referred the matter to the scrutiny committee, a standing committee appointed by the Executive Council to scrutinise and report all cases of unfair means to the Executive Council ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... The Scrutiny Committee examined the whole matter very closely and found that the case of inserting written answers from outside as established........." 5. It will appear that the petitioner was asked to show cause only with regard to one charge, viz., "that you had inserted answers written from outside in History Paper II". ... ... ... ... ... ... .... The Scrutiny Committee examined the whole matter very closely and found that the case of inserting written answers from outside as established........." 5. It will appear that the petitioner was asked to show cause only with regard to one charge, viz., "that you had inserted answers written from outside in History Paper II". It is fairly admitted by the Registrar in his counter-affidavit in this case that some facts were also considered against the petitioner with regard to which, we find, he was not given any opportunity to show cause. Although the charge was with reference to History Paper II, the University took into consideration matters relating to History Paper III and Political Science Paper III, about which the petitioner had no inkling. It is, therefore, clear that the order was based on certain allegations which were not the subject-matter of the charge and with regard to which the petitioner had no reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation. 6. It is well settled that in an enquiry of this nature resulting in penal consequences affecting the future career of a student, the principles of natural justice have to be observed. The basic minimum of such rules is that the student should have an opportunity to know what the charges or allegations are against him, on which the University wants to take action. He should have an opportunity to submit his explanation with regard to such allegations. If the allegations are denied, there should be a proper enquiry, giving the student an opportunity to know the evidence that is led against him, and if he wants to cross-examine any witness supporting the allegations, he should have the opportunity to do so. He should also have an opportunity to produce his evidence to rebut the charge, if he so desires. If the student wants to make any oral submission during the enquiry, he should also have the opportunity to do so. The order ultimately passed, if adverse, should briefly contain the reasons for the same. The matter may be different when the allegations are admitted. The above is ordinarily the procedure which will meet the requirements of natural justice, if there be no specific rules on the subject. 7. We find in this case that the petitioner was denied inspection of the answer script. The matter may be different when the allegations are admitted. The above is ordinarily the procedure which will meet the requirements of natural justice, if there be no specific rules on the subject. 7. We find in this case that the petitioner was denied inspection of the answer script. He was not at all aware of what facts were taken into consideration against him, and it is made clear by the Registrar before the Court that some additional allegations were taken note of against the petitioner, besides those mentioned in the show cause notice. There is, therefore, clear violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. The impugned order of the University is, therefore, quashed and the respondents are directed to forbear from giving effect to the same. 8. As, however, the allegations against the petitioner are serious, this order will not prevent the University, if it so chooses, from taking appropriate action against him in accordance with the rules, if any, and in the light of the observations hereinabove. 9. The application is allowed. We will make no order as to costs. 10. M. C. PATHAK, J. :- I agree. Application allowed.