( 1 ) THE petitioner appeared for the examination in Chemistry of the i Year Bachelor of Engineering Course of the I Semester on the 2nd of august, 1976. During the course of the examination, on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of some incriminating written material, he was prevented from writing the said paper. Thereafter, he was served with a notice Ext. 'a' dt. 10/11th Sep, 1976 issued by the Deputy registrar and Convenor Adhoc Committee. The petitioner was required to offer his explanation within five days in regard to the allegations contained in the said notice and to appear before the Committee constituted for enquiring into the matter at 3 P. M. on 18th Sep, 1976 at the city Office, Mathematical Block, Central College, Bangalore. The notice is in the cyclostyled form and the specific allegation made against the petitioner reads as follows : "possession of incriminating written matter in the examination hall. " the petitioner's case is that as he received the said notice as late as on 17th Sep, 1976, he could not offer a written explanation. He, however, appeared before the Committee and participated in the enquiry on the 18th of Sep, 1976. He examined himself in support of his case and pleaded that he is innocent. It appears that several other cases were also heard by the Committte, which recommended certain punishments being imposed. The Vice-Chancellor exercising the powers of the Syndicate under Sec. 71 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, passed an order imposing the following punishment on the petitioners :"the benefit of his performance, if any, at the I Sem. Civil Engg examination held in July August 1976 be denied to him. He be debarred from appearing for the said examination till July-August 1977. He be permitted to appear for I Sem Civil Engg Examination in January 1978 and onwards. "the said punishment is incorporated in the general Notification pertaining to several candidates dt. 18th Oct, 1976, as per Ext. 'b'. The petitioner's name is included at serial No. 3 against whom the above punishment is noted. ( 2 ) ONE of the complaints of the petitioner is that there has not been a reasonable uniformity in the matter of imposing punishment on different candidates who were found guilty of various mal-practices committed by them. 'b'. The petitioner's name is included at serial No. 3 against whom the above punishment is noted. ( 2 ) ONE of the complaints of the petitioner is that there has not been a reasonable uniformity in the matter of imposing punishment on different candidates who were found guilty of various mal-practices committed by them. But, it is unnecessary for me to go into that question as this writ petition is entitled to succeed on the short ground to be noticed hereafter. ( 3 ) IT was contended by Shri V. A. Mohan Rangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order imposing punishment on the petitioner is liable to be quashed as the mandatory requirements of the proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 62 of the Act have not been complied with. Sub-sec (1) of S. 62 provides that the final authority responsible for maintenance of discipline among the students of the University shall be the Vice-Chancellor and his directions in that behalf shall be carried out by the heads of colleges, hostels and other institutions. Sub- sec (2) which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows :" (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec (1), the punishment of debarring a student from examination or rustication from a college or a hostel or an institution shall, on the report of the vice-Chancellor, be considered and imposed by the Syndicate: provided that no such punishment shall be imposed without giving to the student concerned a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. "it is not disputed tha,t the authority which has imposed the punishment had the necessary power under Sec. 62 (2) of the Act. It is also not the case of the petitioner that no enquiry was held giving an opportunity to him to show cause. What is contended by Shri Mohan Rangam, relying upon the proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 62 of the Act, is that no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was given to him. The petitioner has been awarded the punishment of debarring him from the examination till July-August, 1977. What the proviso to sub-sec (2) contemplates is opportunity being given to the student concerned of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken against him. The petitioner has been awarded the punishment of debarring him from the examination till July-August, 1977. What the proviso to sub-sec (2) contemplates is opportunity being given to the student concerned of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken against him. In other words the student concerned is entitled to be given an opportunity of showing cause aginst the punishment that is sought to be imposed against him. The student concerned, before action is taken under Section 62 (2) of the Act, should be told about the punishment that is proposed to be imposed against him and he should be given an opportunity of placing his case in regard to the proposed punishment. Neither in the notice given to the petitioner as per Ext. 'a' nor in the proceedings of the Committee, which were placed by Shri Vijayashankar for my perusal, is there anything to show that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause at any stage of the' proceedings as to why the punishment of debarring him from appearing for the said examination till July-August, 1977 should not be imposed. That an enquiry was held before the punishment wap imposed and that he was given an opportunity of paticipating in the proceedings is not sufficient compliance with the proviso to sub- sec (2) of Sec. 62 of the Act, inasmuch as the said proviso requires the authority concerned of giving an opportunity to the student concerned of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. The expression "action proposed to be taken against him" clearly indicates the punishment proposed to be imposed must be intimated to the student concerned. His say in the matter should be taken before the punishment is ultimately imposed. It is obvious that though a higher punishment is proposed, it is open to, the authorities to impose a lesser punishment without giving any further opportunity to the student concerned. . But, it is obvious that if a particular punishment is imposed, a higher punishment than that cannot be imposed unless fresh opportunity is given in regard to the imposition of a higher punishment than the one originally proposed. . But, it is obvious that if a particular punishment is imposed, a higher punishment than that cannot be imposed unless fresh opportunity is given in regard to the imposition of a higher punishment than the one originally proposed. As in this case no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of debarring him from the examination till July-August, 19-77 should not be imposed, the impugned order has to be quashed, the same having been passed in contravention of the mandatory requirements of the proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 62 of the Act. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Ext. 'b' in so far as it pertains to the petitioner, whose name is included at serial No. 3 of the said Notification dt. 18th october, 1976 is hereby quashed. No costs. --- *** --- .