M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondent is disposed of by the following order. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the petition may. briefly, be stated as follows: Petitioner is a student of Five year B. E. Course of the Karnataka University studying in the second semester at Basaveswara engineering College, Bagalkot. While he was answering the second semester examination on 1. 10. 80 (Physics paper) due to the blowing of the wind his answer book was blown off the desk at which he was sitting at seat no. 755 in the examination hall. He has. therefore, asserted consequent to the heavy rains and blowing of the wind the papers which were blown off the desk got mixed up and his paper was mixed with that of seat No. 764. However, he was apprehended by the junior invigilator and a statement was recorded from him. Thereafter, he received a show-cause notice by the Controller of Examinations of the karnataka University-second respondent calling upon him to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for indulging in malpractice of copying in the examination in Physics paper on 1. 10. 80. He was also directed to appear before the Malpractice Cases Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committe') at 10. 30 A. M. , on 15. 1. 81. Petitioner accordingly appeared before the Committee and denied that he had copied on 1. 10. 80. Petitioner has alleged that apart from stating the charge nothing else was done by the Committee. He has further alleged that no invigilator was examined nor any other witness was examined by the Committee in his presence. He was not given any statement made by any person. He has also asserted that the concerned answer books were not put to the petitioner to prove the alleged factum of copying. Petitioner was then sent back stating that the inquiry was over. He has also asserted that even the student sitting at seat No. 764 was also not examined nor any other material was placed at the time of inquiry before the petitioner. However, the result of his second semester examination was withheld. After the third semester commenced he paid fees of third and fourth semesters and started attending classes. He has also asserted that even the student sitting at seat No. 764 was also not examined nor any other material was placed at the time of inquiry before the petitioner. However, the result of his second semester examination was withheld. After the third semester commenced he paid fees of third and fourth semesters and started attending classes. He also took examination of third semester which was scheduled to be held between March 28 and April 10. 1981. , On 6th April, when the petitioner was writing his examination, he was informed by the senior Superintendent that a message had been received from the university to the effect that the petitioner had been debarred and he was not permitted to write the examination on the said day and the remaining two other papers for the third semester. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have caused inquiries to be made at the office of the controller of Examinations of the second respondent-University to furnish him the proceedings of the committee and the order passed thereon by the Syndicate of the second respondent-University. That request was turned down by the controller and petitioner was directed to make an application through the principal of the college. The principal returned the" application made by the petitioner without forwarding the same to the Controller of Examinations of the second respondent- university. Petitioner has not been permitted to attend his classes of the iv semester and the order of the syndicate and the proceedings of the committee were never communicated to him. In the result, having no other remedv he has presented this writ petition, inter alia contending that the entire action of the respondents is contrary to law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. Respondents 1 and 2, the principal of the college and the University respectively, have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. It is unnecessary to notice the contentions advanced by the Principal of the College as he hap nothing to do with the action taken by the University against the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2, the principal of the college and the University respectively, have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. It is unnecessary to notice the contentions advanced by the Principal of the College as he hap nothing to do with the action taken by the University against the petitioner. The second respondent in its statement of objections while not disputing some of the assertions made by the petitioner has in turn asserted that the petitioner was caught red handed by the junior invigilator as he was found in possession of the answer book of the student seated at seat No. 764 from which he was copying and thereafterwards on the arrival of the Senior Supervisor the matter was brought to his notice; that a statement was recorded by the petitioner and the matter reported to the concerned authority of the university. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner appeared before the Committee as directed. The Committee explained the charge to him and the petitioner denied the same. The Committee proceeded to record its findings. The proceedings of the Committee are annexed to the statement of objections at annexure-R-4. It is, therefore, corntended for the respondent that the petitioner had adequate opportuney to defend the charge against him and it cannot, be said that there was any violation of the rules of natural justice. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the second respondent brought to my notice certain observations I have made in Writ Petition No. 5373 of 1979 (Mir Amzeed Hussain v. Bangalore university (1 ). The observations are as follows:"the Court should be cautious in dealing with academic matters where the standards of discipline have to be maintained in order to keep the education standards at a high level. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as a court of appeal and disagree with the findings of the committee which was entrusted with the task of finding out facts, unless such finding is perverse or based on no evidence at all. I am unable to see how these observations help the stand taken by the university when in this matter the only point that has to be considered at this stage is whether the, petitioner had adequate opportunity to meet the charge levelled against him. I am unable to see how these observations help the stand taken by the university when in this matter the only point that has to be considered at this stage is whether the, petitioner had adequate opportunity to meet the charge levelled against him. It is true that the Courts at all times are reluctant to interfere with academic matters unless the rights of an individual or groups are affected. Such rights, either, may be legal or constitutional in the instant case, no doubt the formality of issuing a show cause notice and an opportunity to appear before the Comittee is afforded by the second respondent University through the Committee. A look at the proceedings of the Committee indicates that that opportunity has been an empty formality. The proceedings of the committee as evidenced by Annexure-R. 4 is as follows:"the Junior Supervisor Senior supervisor at the Basaveshwar engineering College, Bagalkot have reported that the candidate bearing seat No. 755 was found having possessed the answer. book of seat no. 761 at the Engineering Physics- ii. A show cause notice was issued to the candidate (Seat No. 755) to appear before the Committee on 15. 1. 81. In pursuance of the above show cause notice he appeared before the Committee. He was informed of the charges levelled against him and he was asked to state why action should not be taken for the alleged malpractice the candidate has tried to deny the allegations giving some reasons in writing. However, on going through the expert's opinion that it is evident that candidate No. 755 has copied on page 7 of the answer book No. 196886 from Number 764 of the answer book No. 196886 pages 5 and 6 partly and from page of candidate No. 764 of answer book No. 196276 of 755 No. 1, it is held that the performance of the candidate No. 755 be cancelled and he be debarred from appearing for the examination to be held in february /march 1981. He is allowed to take his examination to be held in August/september 1891. From the above it is clear that after he was apprised of the charge, the petitioner denied the charge against him. But, thereafter the Committee has proceeded to draw its conclusions on material which does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the petitioner. He is allowed to take his examination to be held in August/september 1891. From the above it is clear that after he was apprised of the charge, the petitioner denied the charge against him. But, thereafter the Committee has proceeded to draw its conclusions on material which does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the petitioner. That material is the opinion of the expert to whom appearently the University had referred the matter. That no other evidence was recorded except perusing the report of the supervisor is not denied by the University. The assertion made by the petitioner that neither the answer books in question. nor any report was brought to his notice also has not been denied in the statement of objections. In the result, the assertions made by the petitioner will have to be accepted by thisd Court. In somewhat similar circumstances arising in H. Nagaraja Rao v. Contrailer of Examinations, University of mysore (2 ). I have strongly condemned the authorities who do not afford a real opportunity to the erring student to defend himself at such an inquiry as held by the Committee for the purposes of taking disciplinary action for malpractice in the exami nations. The facts in this case are not so dissimilar as to ignore what i have observed in the aforesaid writ petition. Any opportunity given in cases of this kind must be real in which the student can conveniently meet the charge. He must not only be made known the charge, but he, must be made aware of the evidence on the basis of which the Committee proposes to come to the conclusion contrary to the interests of the student. If that evidence is not made known to the affected person, then there is a real' breach of the rules of natural justice. In the instant case the conclusion of the Committee appear? to be entirely based on the expert's opinion obtained apparently behind the back of the petitioner. No doubt Mr. S. C. Javali, learned Senior counsel appearing for the University has stated that it was obtained in the usual course and that the candidate never asked for the expert's opinion and therefore it was not made available to him at the inquiry. No doubt Mr. S. C. Javali, learned Senior counsel appearing for the University has stated that it was obtained in the usual course and that the candidate never asked for the expert's opinion and therefore it was not made available to him at the inquiry. The question of asking for the report of the expert arises only if there is evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was apprise of the existence of such an opinion by an, expert. In the absence of such evidence in the records it should be presumed that the opinion was never brought, to the notice of the student. The Committee having based its conclusions on material obtained behind the back of the petitioner has clearly transgressed the limits laid down by the courts in regard to even domestic inquiries. Therefore, the, conclusion of the Committee is clearly unsustainable. ( 4 ) YET another reason why the decision of the Committee endorsed by the Syndicate cannot be sustains i is, there is total disregard by the second respondent of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 62 of the karnataka Universities Act, 1976, which provides for an opportunity being given to the erring student of being informed of the proposed punishment before the actual punishment is inflicted on him. From the records produced by the second respondent-University it is seen that the decision of the Syndicate, was never directly communicated to the petitioner, much less preceded by a proposition of the punishment. His assertion that in spite of his request for grant of a copy of the order of the committee, and the proceedings they had been refused has not been denied by the University. In these circumstances the decision of the Committee accepted by the University debarring the petitioner from taking further examinations of that University till march, 1981 is liable to be set aside as being contrary to rules of natural justice as well as the express provision of law contained in subjection (2) of section 62 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976. Therefore, rule will accordingly issue setting aside the decision pertaining to the petitioner. No useful purpose will be served in reserving any liberty to the University to have a fresh inquiry into the matter inasmuch as the punishment inflicted has already been suffered by the petitioner. Therefore, rule will accordingly issue setting aside the decision pertaining to the petitioner. No useful purpose will be served in reserving any liberty to the University to have a fresh inquiry into the matter inasmuch as the punishment inflicted has already been suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner was prevented from completing his II and III semester examinations till march, 1981, and even after March, 1981. The second respondent-University will permit the petitioner consequent upon the setting aside of the decision to allow him to take such examinations which he. is entitled to take hereafterwards including the II and III semester examinations. The petitioner also will be entitled to have the results of his performance of the II and III semesters in such of the papers which, he has answered, announced by the respondents. ( 5 ) SHRI Javali, brought to my notice that the student occupying seat no. 764 was also denied the, benefit of his performance of II and III semester examinations. This may be so. He has not chosen to approach this Court for relief. In that circumstance, it is difficult to make any observation that will benefit him as no facts are placed before this court as to what exactly is the net effect of the punishment inflicted upon him. But, in the light of the observations made in regard to the present petitioner, the Universal may consider as to what it should do in regard to the student occupying seat No. 764. In the circumstances of the case, there win be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .