OM PRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner took up admission in B. Sc. (Ag) Part I on 14-9-1984 in the Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College in Allahabad, affiliated to the University of Kanpur and appeared in B. Sc. (Ag) Part I Examination with Roll No. 280 from the said college itself, which was a centre of examination. No degree of B. Sc. (Ag) could be awarded to any student unless he passed in General English Paper and, therefore, the petitioner appeared in the said paper when he took up the examination of B. Sc. (Ag) Part I. Sri K. C. Srivastava Principal of the aforesaid college was Centre Superintendent and there were several Invigilators, including Sri Kamal Srivastava in the room, where the seat was allotted to the petitioner. It is admitted that the marks awarded in General English Paper do not affect the merit of the students, but it is necessary to pass the said paper, because no degree could be awarded without having passed that paper. The scheme of the University is that if one fails in General English Paper in B. Sc. Part I, then he can appear in Part II in the said paper and if there is no success in General English Paper in Part II also, then one can take up last chance in Part III Examinations. The Principal of the aforesaid college being centre Superintendent reported to the Registrar, Kanpur University vide letter dated 17-7-1985 (Annexure-C. A. 1.) that in 15 answer-books of General English Paper, his signatures had been forged. A note was given at the foot of the said letter that the teachers of Agriculture Faculty refused to work due to indiscipline of the students on the date of examination. Thereupon, a charge sheet Annexure-1 to the writ petition was caused to be served on the petitioner by the University levelling a charge that his answer-books of General English Paper had been written at a place other than the place ear marked by the Centre. The Examination Committee whom the complaint of the Centre Superintendent, was referred to, concurred with the Centre Superintendent that 15 students whose answer-books of General English paper had been sent to the Registrar, were involved in having used unfair means, with the result, the result of the petitioner, inter alia, for the year 1985 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in Examination until 1986. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order (Annexure-C. A. 2), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said order in this petition and also prayed for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of B. Sc. (Ag) Part I Examination of the petitioner for the year 1985 which was cancelled. The petitioner denied having resorted to unfair means. It is contended by him that the answer-book was given to him in the room, allocated by the Centre, he did not move out of the room and he duly handed over the answer-book of General English Paper to the Invigilator; that no report was made by the Invigilator of unfair means having been used by the students and that there was no material on record to show that his answer-book had been written outside the Centre. ( 3 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed on behalf of the Kanpur University, in para. 7 of which it is stated :". . . . . . that as the petitioner has committed forgery and indiscipline in the institution so charge-sheet was served on the petitioner as he did not answer the papers of General English at the centre. . . . . . " ( 4 ) THE short question for consideration is : whether the charge as stated at serial (4) (ka) in the charge-sheet (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), has been substantiated by materials on record. As already pointed out, the petitioner was charged for having got written his answer-book of General English Paper outside the Centre. From the report Annexure-C. A. 1 of the Centre Superintendent, namely, Sri. K. C. Srivastava who was also the Principal of the College, it is manifest that in 15 answer-books of General English Paper, his signatures had been forged. From such forgery, inference was drawn by the authorities that the petitioner and 14 other candidates managed to get their answer-books of General English Paper written from outside the Centre. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to Annexures-1 to 2 to the supplementary affidavit, which are the letters dated 14-12-1985 and 20-2-1986 respectively purporting to have been addressed by the Principal to the Vice-Chancellor of Kanpur University. No supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the University to deny that the said letters were not addressed by the Principal. No supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the University to deny that the said letters were not addressed by the Principal. In the letter Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, the Principal has stated that the Invigilators boycotted the General English Paper; that as a result of boycott, the paper was started after an hour; that the candidates in a big number turned up to write General English Paper, that the Invigilators were not in a position to cope up the rush; that the Invigilators, therefore, signed the answer-books hurriedly and that was why their signatures varied; that on account of the variation in the signatures of the Invigilators, the Principal says that he acquired a wrong impression that the signatures had been forged; and therefore, he hurriedly reported the matter to the Registrar; that in fact the answer-books bore the signatures of the Invigilator and that no candidates handed over the answer-books having been written from outside. With these observations, the Principal recommended to the Vice-Chancellor that either the results of all the candidates be declared or General English Paper of all the students be cancelled and they be permitted to appear in that paper again. When nothing was heard for some time on such letter, the Principal sent another letter Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit to the Vice-Chancellor reiterating that on enquiry he found that the students were innocent and that his report to the Registrar of the University was misconceived. He thus requested the Vice-Chancellor to take up expeditious decision to declare the result of the students so that they may not be punished for no fault of themselves. These two letters by the Principal clearly established that on enquiry he himself found that his report Annexure-C. A. 1 was misconceived and erroneous. There is no averment on behalf of the respondents to impugn the evidentiary value of these two letters of the Principal Annexures 1 and 2 to the supplementary affidavit. No supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed to challenge them in any way. We, therefore, do not see any good reason not to rely upon these two letters. If these two letters are read in evidence as they should be, we unhesitatingly hold that the entire basis of charge levelled against the petitioner, has vanished. The Principal himself has not supported the stand which he took in his report Annexure-C. A. 1. We, therefore, do not see any good reason not to rely upon these two letters. If these two letters are read in evidence as they should be, we unhesitatingly hold that the entire basis of charge levelled against the petitioner, has vanished. The Principal himself has not supported the stand which he took in his report Annexure-C. A. 1. It is this report only which constituted the foundation of the chargesheet, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The foundation on which the chargesheet rested having not been supported by the Principal himself, it must be held that the charge at serial No. (4) (ka) in the charge-sheet, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, has not at all been substantiated against the petitioner If there were slightest evidence of the petitioner having used unfair means, this Court could have been loath to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But since the order, Annexure-C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit, is absolutely without basis and illegal, we, keeping in view the question of the career of the petitioner on which the future of the petitioner depends, are of the view it is a fit case to make interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons, we hold that there is no good reason to cancel the result of the petitioner and debar him from appearing in the examination for a year. The petitioner was permitted by order dated 7-4-1986, passed by this Court, to appear in B. Sc. (Ag) Part II Examination. The petitioner says that he did appear in B. Sc. (Ag) Part II Examination pursuant to Courts order dated 7-4-1986 and he passed B. Sc. (Ag) Part II Examination including General English Paper, as shown in his mark sheet Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents by any material. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a copy of the judgement dated 19-10-1987, pronounced by a Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 5817 of 1986, Jitendra Kumar v. University of Kanpur, filed by another candidate, who was similarly punished by the respondents. In this Judgement also, the Honble Judges took the view that no charge levelled against the petitioner, was substantiated by the respondents. Writ Petn. No. 5817 of 1986, Jitendra Kumar v. University of Kanpur, filed by another candidate, who was similarly punished by the respondents. In this Judgement also, the Honble Judges took the view that no charge levelled against the petitioner, was substantiated by the respondents. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure-C. A. 2 cancelling the result of the petitioner of 1985 Examination and debarring him from appearing until 1986 in any Examination, is quashed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the B. Sc. (Ag) Part I and of B. Sc. (Ag) Part II Examinations. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .