JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—Miss Indu Sharma, petitioner, joined Ph. D. course in Himachal Pradesh University, Agricultural Complex (now Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya), Solan, in November, 1976. She had joined M.Sc, (Agriculture) after obtaining her B.Sc. (pass) degree. Allegations were made against her that she had obtained admission in M.Sc. course by misrepresenting that she had obtained first division in her B.Sc. examination. A fact finding body, called Enquiry Committee, was constituted by the University. It consisted of Dr. H. R. Kalia (respondent No. 2) and Dr. D. R. Thakur (respondent No. 3). Both these respondents were Associate Deans of the Himachal Pradesh University, Agricultural Complex, Palampur. Dr. Ram Gopal was the Chairman of this Enquiry Committee. He wrote a letter (Annexure PA) dated 15th September. 1977 to the petitioner asking her to produce her "B.Sc. degree and detailed marks certificate in original before the Enquiry Committee latest by 1.00 P.M. on 17-9-77 (Saturday) positively." The petitioner refused to produce the documents asked for on the ground that she had produced all of them before the Selection Board at the time of her admission to M.Sc. course. It was further stated by her that this Selection Board was headed by Dean of the Agricultural Complex and "membered by Associate Deans of both the complexes and all the Heads of Departments." Thereafter the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 24th December, 1977 cancelled the admission of the petitioner to Ph. D. course and debarred her from taking admission to this course for a period of two years. The petitioner appealed to the Vice Chancellor of the University against this decision. The father of the petitioner also wrote to the Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture requesting him to show the documents supporting the allegations of misrepresentation made by his daughter. The petitioner appealed to the Vice Chancellor of the University against this decision. The father of the petitioner also wrote to the Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture requesting him to show the documents supporting the allegations of misrepresentation made by his daughter. The Secretary to the Vice Chancellor wrote a letter (Annexure PF) dated 3rd February, 1978 stating "that since the case has already been decided in favour of your daughter, Miss Indu Sharma, the matter may, please be treated as closed." The Controller of the examination of the University wrote to the Dean Agricultural Complex on March 4, 1978 (Annexure ‘PG’) informing the latter "that the Vice Chancellor, in exercising of powers vested in him under statute 2(5) of the First Statute of H. P. University as amended from time to time, has been pleased to order that Miss Indu Sharma be allowed to continue as a Ph. D. student." A copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner. Thereafter Dr. D. R. Thakur, respondent No. 3, wrote to the Professor and Head, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Solan, on 29th March, 1978 stating that the executive Council in its meeting held on March 18, 1978 has decided the implementation of the decision taken by it in the case of Miss Indu Sharma and that the matter was being reviewed by the Dean Agricultural Complex, as directed by the Executive Council (Annexure PH). By office order dated 24th April 1978, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the Controller of Examinations of the University has informed him that the decision taken by the Executive Council in its meeting held on December 4, 1977 to cancel the admission of the petitioner for the Ph. D. course and to debar her taking admission in that course for a period of two years, stands. 2. The petitioner challenges the decision of the University cancelling her admission to Ph. D. course. It is alleged that the action by the respondents is mala fide. The grounds of mala fide are that the petitioners brother Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, who was at that time part time correspondent of various newspapers, had exposed the activities of respondents No. 2 and 3. Both of them were stated to be against the then Vice Chancellor Dr. B. S, Jogi. "Respondent No. 2 in fact challenged the appointment of Dr. Both of them were stated to be against the then Vice Chancellor Dr. B. S, Jogi. "Respondent No. 2 in fact challenged the appointment of Dr. Jogi in the past and respondent No. 3 in collusion with some other college authorities were instrumental in physical attack in July, 1977 on Dr. B.S. Jogi. It was further averred that despite the Vice Chancellors decision to accept the appeal against the decision of the Executive Council cancelling her admission, the respondents still cancelled her admission. It was also alleged that in fact the Executive Council did not direct the Dean, Agricultural Complex to review the case. 3. The return filed by the University is supported by affidavits filed by Dr. H. R. Kalia as well as Dr. D. R. Thakur. I find that both the respondents have net stated anything about the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner in para 12 of the petition. In answer to this para the respondents have stated thus: "Para 12 is denied. The contention of the petitioner is based on false presumption and concocted conviction not borne out by facts and hence the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 and 3 are baseless. The cryptic affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 annexed to the return state: "The contents of para 1 to 13 and 15 to 17 of the reply are true to the information derived from the official record and believed to be correct." Now the allegation of mala fides which was made by the petitioner against these two respondents was personal to them. They should have met the allegation and answered it from their own knowledge It was not a question of deriving information from record. It could not be on the record that Dr. D.R. Thakur, respondent No. 3, was instrumental in physical attack on the then Vice Chancellor in July 1977. They should have further specifically admitted or denied whether facts were exposed in the newspapers as mentioned in para 12 of the petition. Since both the respondents have failed to deny the allegations I have to accept them as correct. 4. D.R. Thakur, respondent No. 3, was instrumental in physical attack on the then Vice Chancellor in July 1977. They should have further specifically admitted or denied whether facts were exposed in the newspapers as mentioned in para 12 of the petition. Since both the respondents have failed to deny the allegations I have to accept them as correct. 4. I find that whereas in para 13 of the petition it was specifically stated by the petitioner that the Executive Council had not authorised the Dean Agricultural Complex to review the matter and the Executive Council had only withdrawn the implementation of the decision taken by it in its meeting held on December 24, 1977," the reply of the respondents does not meet the substance of this allegation. It is not stated whether the Executive Council had in fact directed the Dean Agricultural Complex to review the case of the petitioner. The only relevant part of para 13 of the reply reads thus; "The case was reviewed by the Dean Agricultural Complex and the decision of the E.C. of its meeting held on 24-12-1977 was allowed to be implemented by the Vice Chancellor.- Even copy of the resolution dated 18th March, 1978 directing the Dean to review the case of the petitioner has not been placed before me. I am, therefore, constrained to conclude that the Executive Council had not given any direction or authority to the Dean of the Agricultural Complex to review the petitioners case after the Vice Chancellor had accepted her appeal. In these circumstances, the allegations of mala fides stand established. 5. It is contended that the petitioner was never given an opportunity by the University to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against her. It is not denied by the respondents that the marks sheet as well as the degree relating to B. Sc. (pass) examination of the University was shown by the petitioner to the Selection Committee which was presided over by the Dean of the Agricultural Complex and membered by the Associate Deans and others at the time of her admission to M. Sc. course. The respondents in para 10 of the reply go on to say; "She filed the detailed marks card as also a certificate issued by the Principal, Govt. course. The respondents in para 10 of the reply go on to say; "She filed the detailed marks card as also a certificate issued by the Principal, Govt. College, Solan, showing that she had secured 367 marks out of 600 marks in Botany, Chemistry and Zoology in B.A. Part II and III Examinations and thereby misrepresenting her division as First while in fact she had secured Second division." 6. There is a dispute between the parties as to how the percentage has to be calculated. According to the petitioner "she had joined the B.Sc. course under the Punjab University Calender and in accordance with Section 47 of the H. P. University Act, 1970, the petitioner had to complete the course in accordance with the prospectus of the Punjab University," and so she was entitled to be placed in the first division. The respondents contend that not only the marks obtained by the petitioner in Botany, Chemistry and Zoology but also the marks obtained by her in other subjects have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the division. However, I need not go into this question because the petitioner succeeds on her contention that she was not given an opportunity of being heard before the impugned decision was taken against her by the University. 7. Admittedly the only intimation sent to the petitioner was the letter Annexure PA requesting her to produce her B Sc. degree and detailed marks certificate in original. This letter, as already stated, consists of one sentence. Nothing is stated as to why these documents were required by the Enquiry Committee. This Committee admittedly was a fact finding body. But we do not know what was the report of this Committee and what were the facts which were found by it. If the Committee had found some facts adverse to the petitioner, it was necessary for the authorities concerned to first decide about the action to be taken on the basis of the report. Thereafter, it was also necessary that the petitioner was apprised of the report of the Enquiry Committee, the proposed action, and called upon to show cause against the proposed action. 8. The facts show that the Executive Council of the University acted in a very highhanded manner without caring for the rights of a student who had successfully completed her M. Sc. course and was studying for Ph. 8. The facts show that the Executive Council of the University acted in a very highhanded manner without caring for the rights of a student who had successfully completed her M. Sc. course and was studying for Ph. D. degree. It is surprising indeed that those very persons who were sitting in the Selection Committee and had scrutinised the petitioners degree and detailed marks sheet and found her fit to be admitted to the M Sc. course, later on suddenly found that she had "placed herself in First Division which is factually incorrect and which amounts to misrepresentation of the fact for seeking admission to M. Sc. (Agr.) degree by forging and twisting the marks to her advantage. These are very serious allegations. She had forged nothing. She had placed all her cards on the table. It was for the Selection Committee to see all these. Apparently the activities of the petitioners brother, who was a correspondent of newspapers and who had exposed the goings on in the University (already referred to above) played an important part. Obviously the persons exposed were out to teach the correspondent a lesson and wreak vengeance. The only scapegoat they found was the petitioner. It is surprising again that though the respondents admit that the petitioner had mentioned the full facts in her admission forms, still it had become necessary for them to constitute a fact finding body named Enquiry Committee. There was no necessity indeed for this Committee to be constituted. The petitioner had passed her B Sc. from the respondent University and it was not at all difficult for the Executive Council of the University to find from its own records the State of affairs. The unseemingly haste with which the Executive Council decided to cancel the admission and mar a students career leaves much to be desired. The Executive Council of a University is expected to act with caution and circumspection. Moreover, after the Vice Chancellor had accepted the appeal of the petitioner and assured her father that the matter stood closed, once again the Executive Council decided to implement its decision of cancelling the petitioners admission. Apparently the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Council were at logger-heads. Moreover, after the Vice Chancellor had accepted the appeal of the petitioner and assured her father that the matter stood closed, once again the Executive Council decided to implement its decision of cancelling the petitioners admission. Apparently the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Council were at logger-heads. As already stated, the copies of the resolutions of the Executive Council have not been placed on the record and I cannot say why the University was in a hurry to ride rough shod on the fundamental rights of the petitioner and expel her without giving her an opportunity of being heard. 9. Mr. Nag. learned counsel for the respondents, contends that under rule (e) (4) of the Prospectus the University had the right, indeed a duty, to cancel the petitioners admission. I am afraid that this rule does not give such a wide power to the University as it has exercised in the case of the petitioner. I will read the rule; "Admission to all programmes of the University will be made by the Dean/Associate Dean. The Dean/Associate Dean shall Register the students after payment of the prescribed fees. If it is found at any time that a candidate has obtained admission to a programme by misrepresentation of facts or a candidate is admitted due to an error the Dean/Associate Dean may at his discretion cancel his/her admission." Now the rule is plain. There is no ambiguity in it. It only authorises the Dean or the Associate Dean to cancel the admission of a student if the latter has obtained that admission by misrepresentation of facts or the admission has been because of an error by the University. In other words the erroneous admission is to be cancelled. In the instant case it is not denied that there is nothing wrong about her admission to Ph. D. course. It is also admitted that the petitioner had placed full facts and did not hide any material from the University when she appeared before the Selection Board for admission to M. Sc. course. Whatever the error, it was in respect of her admission to M. Sc. course and not to Ph. D. course. Therefore, the University has no right to call in aid this rule in order to cancel the petitioners admission to Ph. D. course. 10. Mr. course. Whatever the error, it was in respect of her admission to M. Sc. course and not to Ph. D. course. Therefore, the University has no right to call in aid this rule in order to cancel the petitioners admission to Ph. D. course. 10. Mr. Nag also contends that the letter sent to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee calling upon her to produce her B. Sc. degree and the marks sheet in original was a sufficient compliance of the rule of natural justice. 11. The rule of natural justice that one is entitled to be heard before an action is taken against him is by now well settled. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions has laid down that this rule is to be read in every statute unless the latter expressly or by implication, excludes it. Two judgments of the Supreme Court will be sufficient in this case. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, [A.I.R. J967 Supreme Court J269], it was alleged against Dr. Binapani that she had mis-stated her age. An officer was appointed to find out the facts. He submitted a report. On the basis of the report Dr. Binapani was called upon to show cause why another date relating to her birth should not be accepted. Thereafter her age was re-fixed and she was retired. She challenged the decision on the ground, amongst others, that the decision of the State Government was contrary to principles of natural justice. On the basis of the report Dr. Binapani was called upon to show cause why another date relating to her birth should not be accepted. Thereafter her age was re-fixed and she was retired. She challenged the decision on the ground, amongst others, that the decision of the State Government was contrary to principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court up-held her contention, ft was held that she was entitled to be shown the report of the Enquiry Officer, and "such inquiry and decision were contrary to the basic concept of justice and cannot have any value." It was further observed:— "It is true that the order is admininistrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences, as already staled, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence." In A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, [1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases 262], it was laid down; "The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it." 12. In the circumstances mentioned above it cannot be held, as urged by Mr. Nag, that the rules of natural justice have been sufficiently complied with. The petitioner was never told that her admission to Ph. D. course was sought to be cancelled. She was not informed about the findings of the Enquiry Committee. She was never in a position to meet the case which might have been prepared against her. She has been condemned unheard., Indeed the Executive Council, as already observed, acted unfairly with unseemingly haste to mar her career. I, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the impugned order. The respondents will pay costs of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner. Petition allowed. -