CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER D. Basavaraj, at the relevant time, was the student of V. V. Puram college of Law. He answered II! Year law degree examination held during october 1987. His registration number was 852435 for that examination. While answering the paper in labour laws, he is reported to have committed malpractice. He was however called upon to appear before the Malpractice Committee on 23-12-1987 through the Principal of his college. He appeared before them and pleaded that he was not guilty of the alleged malpractice. Despite that, without any further enquiry ; without submitting any documents for inspection or without submitting any witnesses for cross-examination, he was served with a communication from the Registrar (Evaluation) of the respondent-Bangalore University intimating him that he had been debarred from taking any examination till april 1990 in addition to cancelling the benefit of his performance at the examination held in October 1987 for the iii Year Law Degree course. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that annexure A, the endorsement dated 27th january 1988 is illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. He has asserted that it is in violation of the rules of natural justice and contrary to law. ( 2 ) ON notice, the University has entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. It is very curious that the University has chosen to contest these matters and that too in a manner which is shocking to the concience of the court. In para-3 of the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the committee i. e. . ( 2 ) ON notice, the University has entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. It is very curious that the University has chosen to contest these matters and that too in a manner which is shocking to the concience of the court. In para-3 of the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the committee i. e. . Malpractice Enquiry Committee, on the hearing date made enquiries with the petitioner and perused the reports of the chief Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Examinations and indicted the petitioner; the petitioner was notified of the hearing of the Committee through the Principal of the College, the petitioner, no doubt pleaded before the committee that he was not guilty of the offence alleged ; the allegation that the documents relied upon by the committee was not shown to the petitioner is not true ; that the allegation that on enquiry was held against the petitioner is devoid of merit that the petitioner has committed serious malpractices by taking away the answer script from the examination hall and writing the same outside ; and that the committee, after hearing the petitioner and perusing the records passed the order holding the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged. Other averments need not be referred to. ( 3 ) ANNEXURE-1 to the counter-affidavit is the report of the Superintendent of the Examination Hall. It is dated 21-11-1987. It is in Kannada. The true and free translation of the contents will read as follows :"by this I am to submit that on 20-11-1982 I was supervising in room no. 401. At 4-30 I was relieved and went to drink coffee. At that time registration No. 852435 candidate had left the answer script at its place and gone away. On my return to the room at 4-45, the Reg. No. candidate gave his answer script to my hand and left. Additional sheets in my custody had been exhausted. Therefore, I had to get it from different place and therefore i could not enter the number of the additional sheet in the diary. "the above report was the basis of the charge which iss to be found in Anne- xure-2, a proforma, filled up by the Chief superintendent and signed by the Room superintendent and the Chief Superintendent. Therefore, I had to get it from different place and therefore i could not enter the number of the additional sheet in the diary. "the above report was the basis of the charge which iss to be found in Anne- xure-2, a proforma, filled up by the Chief superintendent and signed by the Room superintendent and the Chief Superintendent. At column No. 8 under the heading 'type of Malpractice and Report', the following is filled up : "allegation of the student writing the examination out-side examination hall". That charge, if that is a charge at all, is not found in any part of the report at annexure-1, the foundation of the charge. Thereafter, we see Annexure-3, which is a letter addressed to the Principal, V. V. Puram College of Law, directing him to send the petitioner to appear before the malpractices Enquiry Committee on 23rd december 1987. Annexure-4 is the impugned endorsement issued by the Registrar (Evaluation) which again is in a proforma where the blanks have been filled up. Lastly, the most interesting document is Annexure 5. It is also in a printed from with the heading 'bangalore university, Malpractices Enquiry Cell, depositon Form'. There is no statement of the candidate recorded in that place, but he has signed it. One of the columns, viz. , the crucial column is as follows : "specify the nature of offence you committed as Malpractice in the Examination". Against that, the student is alleged to have written-'alleged of writing the answer book outside the examination shall-which is nothing else but a reproduction of the charge served on him earlier. At the back of Annexure-5, under the caption 'for Office Use' it is stated as follows :"the candidate appeared before the malpractices Enquiry Committee on 23-12-87. The committee after examining the candidate and the records resolved to award the following penalty. Deny the benefit of the performance of all papers of that examination and four more examinations. He is permitted to take up the examination in all papers of that examination during April 1990 examinations and onwards. Sd/xx Chairperson, malpractices Enquiry Committee, bangalore University". ( 4 ) IN the entire series of documents produced by the University, there is on indication that either the Room Superintendent of the Chief Superintendent were ever examined by the Malpractices Enquiry committee in the presence of the candidate. Sd/xx Chairperson, malpractices Enquiry Committee, bangalore University". ( 4 ) IN the entire series of documents produced by the University, there is on indication that either the Room Superintendent of the Chief Superintendent were ever examined by the Malpractices Enquiry committee in the presence of the candidate. Therefore, the question of submitting them for cross-examination did not at all arise. As already pointed out, the candidate stated that he did not plead guilty But Annexure-5 indicates that in the relevant column the candidate is asked to tell about the malpractice he has committed which is rather strange, that too after the charge has been framed. In any event, at the bottom in respect of the column relating to Admission or Denial of guilt, the candidate has stated that he does not admit the guilt. ( 5 ) IF this is the type of enquiry which the Malpractices Enquiry Committee holds in respect of students alleged to have committed malpractices in examination halls, this Court is not only surprised but is shocked at the state of affairs in the university. ( 6 ) IN more than one case, this Court has explained the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice. We need not repeat the same in each petition that comes before us. By now, the University ought to know what the requirements are. There must be a clear charge, statement of witnesses and documents should be furnished to the candidate. Witnesses should be submitted to cross-examination by the candidate if he so desires. There should be proof of the charge. Obvious failure to conduct a proper enquiry has been explained by the narration of facts itself. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned endorsement issued by the registrar, Annexure-4 dated 27th January 1988 is quashed as being without the authority of law and violative of rules of natural justice. Rule will accordingly issue. Petition is allowed. ( 8 ) PETITIONER is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee is Rs. 250. 00. --- *** --- .