JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, A.C.J. 1. The Petitioner appeared at the Annual Intermediate in Arts Examination of 1980 held by the Utkal University from the Rajkanika Centre. The University authorities, on the allegation that he took recourse to unfair (sic) at the examination, have cancelled the results of the annual examination and have debarred him from appearing at any of the subsequent examinations prior to the second examination of 1981. and challenge in this application is to that disciplinary action. The Petitioner was asked to show cause in terms of Annexure-2 as to why disciplinary action may not be taken against him for having tom the answer script of English Paper I Examination which was held in the forenoon of 13-3-1980 into pieces. The Petitioner showed cause saying that the answer book was not torn by him, but by the Centre Superintendent and Invigilator being Sri Narahari Sabat and Sri Suresh Mohan Das respectively. As indicated in his show cause, this had been done as the Petitioner, protested against supply of copying material by a student to one Bhimsen Mohanty who was the President of the Students' Union. The Centre Superintendent and the Invigilator abused the Petitioner and ultimately torn his answer paper. Annexure-4 which is the report of the Board of Conducting Examiners shows that the Centre Superintendent had reported to the following effect: Immediately the candidate stood up and tore up his answer script into pieces and left the hall and threatened one of the Invigilators who followed him. Admittedly the Petitioner was not supplied with the material in the possession of the University on the basis of which the allegation was raised against him. Tearing the answer script itself does not constitute any malpractice. The counter affidavit also specifically does not point out as to what exactly constituted the malpractice for which disciplinary action has been taken. Mr. Mohapatra for the University ultimately relied upon the instructions printed on the cover page of the answer script where it has been shown that after the questions have been answered the answer script should be made over to "the Invigilator, and since in the instant case the Petitioner is alleged to have torn the answer script and had failed to deliver the answer paper as required in the instructions on the answer book, a malpractice had been committed. We are not prepared to accept this stand of Mr. We are not prepared to accept this stand of Mr. Mohapatra to be correct. Every candidate who takes the examination is certainly expected to deliver his answer book for being valued, otherwise the purpose of submitting himself to the examination is frustrated. The Petitioner had taken the stand that it was not he but some others who had torn the answer paper. The allegation made by the Petitioner was of an equally serious type and the University should have certainly thought it proper to probe into the same. 2. There is no doubt in our mind that rules of natural justice have not been followed in as much as the Petitioner had not been given an adequate opportunity of knowing what the exact charge was and what were the materials on the basis of which the charge was framed. Since per se the conduct of the Petitioner, even if accepted, does not constitute malpractice as is ordinarily understood, this case should not have been dealt with' as a usual case of malpractice. From the materials placed before us, we are inclined to the ink that serious prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner on that account. 3. Mr. Mohapatra for the University fairly conceded that he cannot support the order as the matter stands, but maintained that the matter should be sent back to the University to be dealt with afresh. We do not think it would be appropriate to allow the University to go into the matter again adding further to the prejudice already caused to the Petitioner. Since English Paper I was not available to be valued, that paper must be taken to be scratched The Petitioner is therefore, not entitled to any credit in English Paper I. His other answer papers must have been valued and the University Authorities are called upon to declare his result on the basis of the rest of the papers. 4. The writ application is allowed. The disciplinary proceeding and the final order therein are quashed and a writ of mandamus should be issued to declare the Petitioner's results in the Annual Intermediate in Arts Examination of 1980 in accordance with law within one month from the date of service of the writ. We direct parties to bear their own costs. N.K. Das, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed