JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The six petitioners who were students of the third year Arts class of N.C. College, Jajpur in the year 1978-79 have come up with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash Annexure-3, the notice No. 218 dated 28-4-1979 issued by the Principal debarring them from appearing in the rest of the sittings of the Annual College Examination of 1979 commencing from first sitting of 28-4-1979, Annexure-4 the notice No. 231 dated 5-5-1979 informing them that they ceased to be the students of the institution with effect from the afternoon of 5-5-1979, and Annexure-5 the letter No. 1932(6) dated 8-5-1979 requiring them to clear up all their dues so that their Transfer Certificates would be sent to the Syndicate of Utkal University for necessary action. 2. Petitioners' case is that N.C. College, Jajpur is a Government College and they were students of third year Arts class in the year 1978-79. Badrinarayan Ray, petitioner no. 1 was the President of the College Union during the year and the other five petitioners were his ardent supporters. In the month of April, 1979 there was some difference between the Principal (opposite party no. 1) and the petitioner no. 1 in regard to the annual function of the Union. The College Annual Examination of the third year started on 27-4-1979 and there was examination in English from 2 p.m. till 4.30 p.m. on that day. It is alleged that soon after the commencement of the examination petitioner no. 1, who had a seat in Room No. 1, wanted to go out with the question paper. Opposite party no. 2 Madhabananda Das, Lecturer in Philosophy, who was the invigilator in that room, prevented him from going out. At this, petitioner no. 1 got furious and assaulted opposite party no. 2. There was so much commotion that other examinees in other rooms left their examination and congregated in front of the Room No. 1. The other lecturers came to the rescue of opposite party no. 2 and took him to the chamber of the Principal. The examination in English scheduled to be held could not be held on that day. Thereafter it is alleged that about 50 students led by these six petitioners entered into the Principal's chamber and damaged some property in the Principal's office. Opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. (Annexure. 2 and took him to the chamber of the Principal. The examination in English scheduled to be held could not be held on that day. Thereafter it is alleged that about 50 students led by these six petitioners entered into the Principal's chamber and damaged some property in the Principal's office. Opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. (Annexure. 2) in the Jajpur police station on the same day against the petitioners alleging that they have committed offences under sections 342/323/448/426/506/34, Indian Penal Code. The Principal opposite party no. 1 issued show cause notice (Annexure-1 is one such notice) to the petitioners on 27-4-1979 calling for an explanation so as to reach by 2-5-1979 as to why necessary disciplinary action would not be taken against them as they had violated the college discipline and as per their undertaking given at the time of admission they were liable to be removed from the College rolls. The petitioners allege that before receiving their explanation, the Principal imposed the first punishment on 28-4-1979 vide Annexure-3 debarring them from appearing in the rest of the sittings of the Annual College Examination of 1979 commencing from first sitting of 28-4-1979. The petitioners submitted their explanations denying the allegations made against them. As per Annexure-4, dated 5-5-1979 the Principal informed the petitioners that they ceased to be the students of the institution with effect from the afternoon of 5-5-1979. By another notice issued by registered post No. 1932(6) dated 8-5-1979 (Annexure-5) the Principal intimated that the petitioners were found guilty of four charges mentioned in the said notice and required them to clear up all their dues early so that their Transfer Certificate with a copy of the letter would be sent to the Syndicate of the Utkal University for necessary action. The petitioners allege that the action taken by the Principal a per Annexures 3, 4 and 5 are illegal, mala fide and violative of the principles of natural justice and in derogation of the principles of the University Statute and Regulations. 3. Opposite party no. 1, the Principal, has filed a counter affidavit in which he has, inter alia, stated that the writ petitioner as laid is not maintainable; that there was difference between him and petitioner no. 1 as alleged in regard to the annual function of the Union is incorrect and untrue and he had no grudge whatsoever against petitioner no. 1, the Principal, has filed a counter affidavit in which he has, inter alia, stated that the writ petitioner as laid is not maintainable; that there was difference between him and petitioner no. 1 as alleged in regard to the annual function of the Union is incorrect and untrue and he had no grudge whatsoever against petitioner no. 1; that it is absolutely correct that there was commotion and assault in the examination hall on opposite party no. 2, who had to be rescued with the intervention of the staff and taken to the Principal's room; that the petitioners along with other students forcibly entered into the Principal's room and indulged in violence; that petitioner no. 1 broke the telephone of the Principal's office and thereafter left the room of the Principal shouting and threatening opposite parties 1 and 2; that information was lodged in the Jaipur police station by opposite party no. 2; that there was a meeting of the College Staff Council constituted under Article 172 of Part VIII, Chapter XX of the Utkal University Statute at 4 p.m. on 27-4-1979 and the entire situation was reviewed in the light of the reports of the invigilators and the F.I.R was lodged by opposite party no. 2; that there was a meeting of the College Staff Council constituted under Article 172 of Part VIII, Chapter XX of the Utkal University Statute at 4 p.m. on 27-4-1979 and the entire situation was reviewed in the light of the reports of the invigilators and the F.I.R was lodged by opposite party no. 2; that taking into consideration the entire situation and misconduct and misbehaviour and on the advice of the Council and in due discharge of the responsibility vested in him under Article 113 of the Orissa Education Code, the petitioners were debarred from appearing in the further examinations and simultaneously a notice was issued to the petitioners as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against them for having violated the College discipline and petitioners submitted their explanation on 2-5-1979; that after careful consideration of the reports of the invigilators and the explanation received from the petitioners and the statements of the members of the staff who were engaged in the examination, the Disciplinary Committee of the College constituting the Principal as its Chairman and other Heads of Departments of the College as its members in its meeting on 5-5-1979 came to the conclusion that the petitioners no more deserved to be the students of the College or of any other academic institution; that accordingly the decision was intimated to the petitioners on 5-5-1979 that they ceased to be the students of the College and this was again reiterated by an order dated 8-5-1979 vide Annexure-5; and that a detail report about the entire incident and the decision taken in the matter was sent to the University on 12-5-1979 along with the Transfer Certificates of the petitioners for taking necessary action. It has been further stated that the instructions of the Utkal University issued to the Centre Superintendents of examinations empowered the latter to expel a candidate accused of is conduct inside or outside of the examination hall. This was so reiterated in the admit cards issued to the candidates by the superintendent. The internal assessment examination of first and third year classes including the annual examination are University examinations and the rules, regulations and instructions for conduct of such examinations apply to these examinations, opposite party no. 1 has also denied the allegation that he incited opposite party no. 2 to implicate the petitioners in false cases. The internal assessment examination of first and third year classes including the annual examination are University examinations and the rules, regulations and instructions for conduct of such examinations apply to these examinations, opposite party no. 1 has also denied the allegation that he incited opposite party no. 2 to implicate the petitioners in false cases. He has also asserted that the entire action taken in this case against the petitioners was for enforcement of discipline and in the best interest of the institution, but not with any ulterior motive, as alleged. 4. On behalf of the Utkal University, opposite party no. 4, a counter has been filed in which it has been stated that no relief has been claimed against the University and the University as been unnecessarily made a party in this proceeding. It is further stated that the University has received a copy of Annexures-4 and 5 with letter of the Principal, opp. party no. 1, narrating all the allegations against the petitioners along with the Transfer Certificates for the needful at the University's end. These were received on 15-5-1979. The matter was placed before the Syndicate and on 26-5-1979 the action of the Principal was approved. But before taking any action, the Principal was directed to ask the concerned students (petitioners) as well as their respective guardians to show cause as to why Transfer Certificates would not be withhold permanently. 5. Opposite party no. 2 Madhabananda Das, Lecturer in Philosophy in N.C. College, Jaipur has also filed an affidavit. He has stated that he was one of the invigilators in Room No. 1 on 27-4-1979. He has also narrated the entire incident and the assault on him, and about lodging of the F.I.R. before the police. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that on 27-4-1979 by Annexure-1 the Principal asked the petitioners to explain by 2-5-1979 as to why necessary disciplinary action would not be taken against them as they violated the college discipline as per the undertaking given at the time of admission and as to why they should not be removed from the college rolls. The allegation that was made against them was that they created unnecessary commotion and/or forcibly entered into the Principal's office without permission and destroyed some of the furniture and fittings. The allegation that was made against them was that they created unnecessary commotion and/or forcibly entered into the Principal's office without permission and destroyed some of the furniture and fittings. On 28-4-1979, by Annexure-3, the petitioners were debarred from appearing in the rest of the sittings in the Annual College Examination of 1979 commencing from first sitting of 28-4-1979. By Annexure-4 dated 5-5-1979 the petitioners were informed by the Principal that they ceased to be the students of the institution with effect from 5-5-1979 Mr. Dash argued that explanation was called for from the petitioners as per Annexure-1 and the same was to be submitted by 2.5.1979. But before the explanation was received by the Principal, he took action as per Annexure-3 by debarring the petitioners from appearing in the rest of the situation of the sittings of the Annual College Examination. Further, by Annexure-4 the petitioners were informed that they ceased to be the students of the institution with effect from 5-5-1979. In Annexure-4 there is nothing to indicate that the explanations submitted by the petitioners denying the charges against them were considered nor there is any indication as to what were the materials on the basis of which the action as per Annexure-4 was taken. Mr. Dash further submitted that the above actions as per Annexures-3 and 4 have been taken without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. Realising that the actions taken were mala fide and unjustified, the Principal and authorities tried to cover up their deficiency by issuing Annexure-5 dated 8.5.1979, which was purported to have been done continuation of office letter No. 231 dated 5-5-1979 (Annexure-4) wherein it has been stated that the explanations were found unsatisfactory and the petitioners were found guilty of the following charges :- (1) Assault on Shri M.N. Das, Lecturer in Logic and Philosophy. (2) Unruly and mob-behaviour in disrupting the College Examination. (3) Wanton destruction of Government property. (4) Abject disrespect and insult to authority. The authorities after finding the petitioners guilty of the above charges informed them that they no more deserved to be the students of the institution or of any other academic institution, they were further asked to clear up their dues so that their Transfer Certificates may be sent to the Syndicate for necessary action. Mr. The authorities after finding the petitioners guilty of the above charges informed them that they no more deserved to be the students of the institution or of any other academic institution, they were further asked to clear up their dues so that their Transfer Certificates may be sent to the Syndicate for necessary action. Mr. Dash pointed out that the letter issued under Annexure-5 is an afterthought and was an attempt to make up the deficiency and to give it a colour that the explanations have been considered. Even then, the authorities have utterly failed in their attempt as the charges levelled against the petitioners as per Annexure-1 are entirely different from that found as per Annexure-5. Mr. Dash further submitted that the cardinal principles hat are to be followed before taking disciplinary action against misconduct in educational institutions have been enunciated from time to time in several decisions of this Court as well as different High Courts. In a decision reported in Pramila Dei v Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack 38(1972) C.L.T. 349, which was a case in which disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner for having adopted unfair means at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, it was held as follows :- "8(a) Principle of natural justice is not an embodied rule. Its requirements would vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. (b) The minimum requirements of principle of natural justice which would be followed in every case are (i) that the person accused would be informed about the accusations made against him together with the statement of the allegations on which they were based; (ii) he should get a reasonable opportunity of stating his own case by way of explanation to the charges ; (iii) the Tribunal which would hold the enquiry would act in good faith ; and (iv) while hearing the matter the Tribunal would give full opportunity to the delinquent to make his comments and criticisms upon the materials used against him. (c) Unless statutorily or otherwise prescribed by specific rules, there is no obligation on the prosecutor to examine in the proceeding oral evidence or to suo motu give opportunity for cross-examination. (d) If, however, the delinquent as a part of defence demands that the witnesses reporting against him are to be cross-examined by him, refusal thereof would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity". (d) If, however, the delinquent as a part of defence demands that the witnesses reporting against him are to be cross-examined by him, refusal thereof would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity". In another decision reported in Debaprasanna Misra and others v. Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and another I.L.R. 1971 Cuttack 433, the order of the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack awarding punishment against the petitioners was challenged. This Court while quashing the order of the Principal imposing punishment, inter alia, observed :- "xx xx xx .........(x) Information's gathered even in support of the tentative conclusion had not been brought to the notice of the petitioners even without disclosing the sources thereof. xx xx xx (xii) The petitioners never had a proper chance to defend themselves nor to explain the circumstances if any against them. (xiii) Failure in the observance of the principles of natural justice is manifest." Mr. Dash contended that failure to follow the principles of natural justice along with other infirmities in the present case is sufficient to allow the petition and quash Annexures-3, 4 and 5. In support of his contention he cited decisions reported in Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and another AIR 1958 S.C. 667 ; M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another AIR 1975 S.C. 266 ; Ramesh Chandra Sahu v. M. Padhy, Principal, Khallikote College, Berhampur AIR 1959 Orissa 196; M.S. Cyriac v. Vice-Chancellor, Kerala University, Trivandrum and others AIR 1975 kerala 158; Ram Narain Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others AIR 1967 Allahabad 535 and The Board of Trustees, Paradeep Port Trust v. M/s. Radio Foundation Engineering Ltd. and others 45(1978)C.L.T 106. 7. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1 submitted that the action of the Principal against the petitioners as per Annexure-3 is perfectly justified in order to maintain discipline in the institution. The action as per Annexure-3 was taken after reviewing the situation in the light of the reports of the invigilators and the F.I.R. lodged by opp. party no. 2 in an emergent meeting of the College Staff Council constituted under Article 172, Chapter XX, Part VIII of the Utkal University Statute and simultaneously show cause notice was issued by the Principal as per Annexure-1. party no. 2 in an emergent meeting of the College Staff Council constituted under Article 172, Chapter XX, Part VIII of the Utkal University Statute and simultaneously show cause notice was issued by the Principal as per Annexure-1. After the explanations were received from the petitioners, the Disciplinary Committee of the College constituting of the Principal as its Chairman and other Heads of the Departments of the College as its Members in its meeting held on 5-5-1979 on a careful consideration of the reports of the invigilator explanations of the petitioners and the statements of the members of the staff who were engaged in the examination decided that the petitioners no more deserved to be the students of the College or for that matter in any other academic institution and the Principal was authorised to take appropriate action. Accordingly the petitioners were intimated as per Annexure-4 and this decision was again reiterated by opposite party no. 1 by order dated 8-5-1979 (Annexure-5) and the University was requested to take necessary steps for issuing Transfer Certificates to the petitioners. According to the instructions of the Utkal University the Centre Superintendents of the Examinations were empowered to expel candidates accused of misconduct inside and outside the examination hall which has also been mentioned in the Admit Card. Learned Government Advocate, therefore, contended that there is no mala fide on the part of the college authorities. The actions were taken after considering the explanations of the petitioners and thus the principles of natural justice have not been violated. According to him, the details given in Annexure-1 give sufficient indication to the petitioners about the charges they were to meet and it cannot be said that the finding arrived at as per Annexure-5 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges mentioned thereunder was satirely different from the charges mentioned in Annexure-1. Learned Government Advocate contended that conceding for the sake of argument though not admitting that the petitioners have not been informed of all the charges of which they were found guilty as per Annexure-5, at least one of the charges i.e. destruction of Government property has been clearly mentioned in Annexure-1 and the College authorities are competent to find the petitioners guilty on the basis of that charge alone and award punishment. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in State of Orissa and others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra 29 (1963) C.L.T. 302 (S.C.). In that case the Administrative Tribunal constituted under rule 4(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 held an enquiry against the delinquent officer on two charges. Item no. 1 related to five specific heads charging the respondent with having received illegal gratification and item no. 2 related to possession of means disproportionate to his income as a Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal held that there was reliable evidence to support four out of the five heads in the first charge 'of corruption' and also the charge relating to possession of means disproportionate to the income and recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service. The finding of the Tribunal was tentatively approved by the Governor of Orissa and the respondent was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service as recommended. The officer made a detailed submission in rejoinder and contended, inter alia, that the Tribunal held the enquiry in a manner contrary to rules of natural justice. After completing necessary formalities the Governor of Orissa directed that the officer be dismissed from service. This order was challenged by the delinquent officer before the High Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for quashing Annexure-4, the order of dismissal. The High Court held that there was no evidence in support of the charges 1(a) and 1(e), but there was evidence in support of the charges 1(c), 1(d) and 2. Charges 1(a) and 1(e) were vitiated as there was failure to observe "the rules of natural justice" and thus it was left to the Government to decide whether on the basis of those charges the punishment of dismissal should be maintained or else whether a lesser punishment would be sufficient. The case was carried to the Supreme Court and it was held by the Supreme Court that the order directing the Government to reconsider the question of punishment cannot be sustained. The case was carried to the Supreme Court and it was held by the Supreme Court that the order directing the Government to reconsider the question of punishment cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court observed :- "If the order of dismissal was based on the findings on charges 1(a) and 1(e) alone the Court would have jurisdiction to declare the order of dismissal illegal but when the findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be interfered with by the High Court and those findings established that the respondent was prima facie guilty of grave delinquency, in our view the High Court had no power to direct the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the order of dismissal. The constitutional guarantee afforded to a public servant is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, and that he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The reasonable opportunity contemplated has manifestly to be in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. But the Court in a case in which an order of dismissal of a public servant is impugned is not concerned to decide whether the sentence imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanour established. The reasons which induce the punishing authority : If there has been an enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable, nor is the penalty open to review by the Court. If the High Court is satisfied that if some but all of the findings of the Tribunal were "unassailable", the order of the Governor on whose powers by the rules no restrictions in determining the appropriate punishment are placed, was final, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty for as we have already observed the order of dismissal passed by a competent authority on a public servant, if the conditions of the constitutional protection have been complied with, is not justiciable. Therefore if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. The High Court was, in our judgment, in error in directing the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the question." Basing on the above decision, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as one charge, i.e. destruction of Government property, of which the petitioners had notice, had been established this Court should not interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioners even though the three other charges mentioned in Annexure-5 were not mentioned in Annexure-1. Learned Government Advocate cited another decision reported in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala and others AIR 1969 S.C. 198 , wherein relying on some English decision the Supreme Court held :- "The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions. xx xx xx The requirements of natural justice in case of an enquiry of this kind are, first, that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. xx xx xx The requirements of natural justice in case of an enquiry of this kind are, first, that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. xx xx xx Held that it could not be contended that there was any breach of the principles of natural justice even if the Vice-Chancellor did not make available to the student a copy of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer particularly when the examinee had not asked for it." Learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on a decision reported in Pramila Dei v. Secretary Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack 38 (1972) C.L.T. 349, and submitted that the petitioners have been informed about the accusation made against them and they have been given reasonable opportunity of stating their case by way of explanation to the charges and the authorities after considering their explanations have imposed the punishment. He also contended that the Principal acted in good faith and after considering the explanations have imposed the punishment in order to maintain proper discipline in the institution and so there is no reason as to why Annexures 3, 4 and 5 should be quashed. 8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and the principles enunciated and on the basis of the arguments of both sides, it is to be seen whether the petitioners have made out a case for quashing the orders under Annexures 3, 4 and 5. As it appears from the counter of opposite party no. 1, after the emergent meeting of the College Staff Council opposite party no. 1 taking into consideration the case of violence, misconduct and misbehaviour of the petitioners on the advice of the Council and in due discharge of the responsibility vested in him, debarred the petitioners from appearing in the rest of the examinations of the Annual College Examination and simultaneously issued show cause notices to the petitioners as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for violating the college discipline. It has been stated in the counter that after considering the report of the invigilators, the explanations received from the petitioners and the statements of the members of the staff who were engaged in conducting the examination, the Disciplinary Committee of the College with the Principal as Chairman came to the conclusion that the petitioners no more deserved to be the students of the institution as per Annexure-4. Though in the counter it has been asserted, Annexure-4 does not show that the explanations submitted by the petitioners were considered and it has not been mentioned as to what were the materials basing on which the action under Annexure-4 was taken. Admittedly the petitioners have not been given any opportunity to make their comments and criticism on the materials used against them. Even the subsequent letter under Annexure-5 dated 8-5-1979 did not mention as to on which materials the petitioners were found guilty of the charges. As it is evident, opposite party no. 1 has relied on the reports of the invigilators, statements of the members of the staff and the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2 which the petitioners had no notice and had no opportunity to challenge. The enquiry held was a quasi judicial in nature and as it appears no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners for defending themselves. The argument of the learned Government Advocate that there is no obligation on the prosecutor to adduce in the proceeding oral evidence or to suo motu give opportunity for cross-examination is of no avail as the petitioners were completely in the dark as to what evidence was collected against them in this case the reports of the invigilators and the statements of the members of the staff were not supplied nor brought to the notice of the petitioners. In the premises aforesaid and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of both sides, we hold that the information gathered against the petitioners had not been brought to the notice of the petitioners; that the petitioners never had a chance to defend themselves; and that there was failure of observance of natural justice. 9. In the result, therefore, the writ application is allowed and Annexures 4 and 5 are quashed. 9. In the result, therefore, the writ application is allowed and Annexures 4 and 5 are quashed. But the prayer for quashing Annexure-3 has become infructuous as the examination in third year Arts has already been completed and there is no question of giving them chance to appear in the said examination. We make it, however, clear that nothing contained in this judgment shall debar the College authorities from proceeding further against the petitioners and awarding such disciplinary punishments as the authorities may deem fit in accordance with law. If such an enquiry is made it should be completed by opposite party no. 1 as expeditiously as possible. 10. Parties to bear their own costs. S.K. Ray, C.J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed