JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal and V.K. Khanna, JJ. - Vinod Kumar, the petitioner, was respondent of B.Sc. Part 11 Allahabad University,. His Roll Number was 790. He appeared in the month of March, 1981, in the final examination of B.Sc. On 26th of March, the petitioner appeared in the examination of Botany paper II. On that date the squad of the University made a surprise inspection of the hall in which the petitioner was allowed the seat. It found three full size pages of the register from the profession of the petitioner. Upon the seizure of these papers, the petitioner was given a questionnaire. One of ti e questions mentioned in clause (b) was as to whether three papers seized were found from the possession of the petitioner. As a against the said question, the petitioner wrote Haan in his own hand. Thereafter, the petitioner was supplied another copy. When the copy went to the Examiner, he compared three full size papers recovered from the possession of the petitioner with the answers given by him. On comparison, he was of opinion that these papers had been utilised tire petitioner for answering no. 9. On the basis of the said report of the Examiner, the petitioner was charge sheeted calling upon him to explain as to why Iris examination for this year was not liable to be cancelled ana further why was he not liable to be debarred from appearing in any examination of subsequent years. The charge was as under : "I, B.M. Singh, Registrar and Superintendent of Examination, University of Allahabad, hereby call upon you to take notice. (1) That on 26-3-81) when you were giving Examination in Botany paper I for the B.Sc. II Examination of 1980 you were found using, attempting to use unfair means in the Examination 2. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge. Ultimately, the Enquiry Committee found the petitioner having used unfair means. Acting upon the said report, the petitioners result of the year 1980 was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing in the next year i.e. 1981. Being dissatisfied with that order, the petitioner filed the present writ. 3. The submission made by the petitioner was that there was no cadence before the Enquiry Committee which led to the conclusion that the pages relied upon by the Examiner. were recovered from him. Being dissatisfied with that order, the petitioner filed the present writ. 3. The submission made by the petitioner was that there was no cadence before the Enquiry Committee which led to the conclusion that the pages relied upon by the Examiner. were recovered from him. He urged that there was no evidence worthy or reliance to the effect that the three pages had been recovered from the petitioner and his admission had been obtained on the questionnaire given by the squad under threat of the police, the same could not be looked into for finding against the petitioner. 4. We are unable to find any merit in this submission. The petitioner had admitted the recovery of these three pages on 26th March, 1981, in the Examination hall. The explanation offered now in the writ petition is that the said explanation had been given under the threat of the police is too good to be believed. The petitioner appears to be changing his version. 5. The second argument was that the charge-sheet given to the petitioner w as not in respect of the matter in which he was held guilty and, as such, the order passed against the petitioner was illegal. Counsel pointed out that he had been found using and attempting to use unfair means. This was not the charge relating to the recovery of three papers from his possession. The submission is not correct, Towards the end it is mentioned : Material found. Three hand written full size papers. Reading the charge-sheet as a whole, one is to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the charge about recovery of three pages from him and that it was used by him in the examination. 6. The next question was that of quantum of punishment. Counsel urged that under the Ordinances framed by the Allahabad University, the petitioners result could only be cancelled and not debarred for subsequent years. Clause B of 1.6 makes the position crystal clear and empowers the Committee to cancel the result of the examination in which he appeared but also debar him from appearing at the next academic session. 7. Counsel contended that if the petitioners case was liberally considered, the quantum of punishment would be found excessive. We are sitting in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot say that the quantum is excessive requiring our interference. 7. Counsel contended that if the petitioners case was liberally considered, the quantum of punishment would be found excessive. We are sitting in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot say that the quantum is excessive requiring our interference. The submission is, therefore liable to fail. 8. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.