( 1 ) THE facts leading to this writ appeal are to be set out at some length. The appellant is the Professor of English and Head of the Department of English in the university of Mysore. In such capacity he was appointed every year as an Examiner. He was also the Chairman of Board of Examiners for English M. A. examination. The appointment of the Board of Examiners and Chairman is done for each year by the syndicate under Section 25 (2) (c) of the Karnataka State Universities Act (shortly referred to as 'the Act' ). For the year 1983, the appellant was appointed as Chairman of Board of Examiners. A complaint was submitted by a member of Syndicate of the mysore University to the Chancellor stating that a candidate with a Code No. 9664 of M. A. , previous Paper-Ill English secured 27 by first valuation by the external examiner and 41 marks by II valuation by the internet examiner one Dr. Sankar. subordinate Ekambaram, who was the scrutiniser of the tabulation work of this particular candidate. After the first valuation marks of 27 and second valuation marks of 41, the appellant called Dr. Shankar who is the second valuer of the above paper and asked him to alter 0' mark given by Dr. Shankar for answer to question No. 8 to 9'. The object of this alteration was the second valuation marks would become 41+9=50 which would make a difference of more than 20 between internal and external valuation thereby rendering it eligible for reference. However Dr. Shankar refused to oblige the appellant. 3. Thereafter the appellant arranged to alter marks 27 given to Paper III by first valuation to 20 by erasing 7 marks and by over-writing 0' through the said ekainbaram. This created a difference of more than 20 marks between first and second valuation. 4. Alter tampering with the marks list as above, the appellant himself valued the papers as Board valuation without any reference by the Controller with a motive of giving a class to this particular candidate with Reg. No. 9664 in III Paper (English) in m. A. previous June 1983 examination by awarding 41 marks. It is also clear in this case that there was no reference for revaluation by the Controller of examinations. 5. No. 9664 in III Paper (English) in m. A. previous June 1983 examination by awarding 41 marks. It is also clear in this case that there was no reference for revaluation by the Controller of examinations. 5. On the other complaint of a similar nature, in so far as this matter, was not brought to the Syndicate and the appellant was continued as Chairman, the chancellor was approached by members of the Syndicate and Senate of Mysore university. Seized with this complaint, the Chancellor directed to conduct an independent enquiry into the allegations under Section 8 of the Act and forward the report of the enquiry. Such direction was given to the Divisional Commissioner, mysore Division. Whereupon the Divisional Commissioner, framed charges against the appellant to the following effect: "office of the Divisional Commissioner, mysore Division, Mysore-560 005 dated: 4th January, 1985. No. PS/55/a/1983-84. To prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, professor and Head of the Department of English, university of Mysore, manasagangothri, Mysore. Through: The Registrar, university of Mysore, mysore. MEMO it is proposed to hold a joint enquiry against you, Prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, professor and Head of the Department of English, Manasagangothri, Mysore and chairman, Board of Examiners in English for the Post-Graduate Examinations of mysore University and Shri E. J. Ekainbaram, Reader in English, Institute of correspondence Course and Continuing Education, Manasagangothri, Mysore, on charges, as per Annexure-I, under Provisions of Section 8 of the Karnataka state Universities Act, 1976 read with letter No. D. O. GS. 48 MUM 84, dated 12-6-1984 and letter of even number dated 3rd July, 1984 from the Secretary to governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE substance of imputations of misconduct and negligence of duty inrespect of which the joint enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of article of charges in Anncxure-I. ( 3 ) A statement of imputations of misconduct and negligence of dutiesin support of the article of charges is enclosed vide Annexure-II. ( 4 ) A list of documents by which the article of charges is proposed to be sustained is enclosed vide Annexure-III. ( 5 ) A list of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges now framedagainst you is as per Annexurc-IV. ( 4 ) A list of documents by which the article of charges is proposed to be sustained is enclosed vide Annexure-III. ( 5 ) A list of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges now framedagainst you is as per Annexurc-IV. ( 6 ) YOU are required to submit within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this Memo a written statement of defence and also to state whether you desire to be heard in person. ( 7 ) YOU are further informed that the joint enquiry will be held in respect of those article of charges as are not admitted by you, you should specifically state whether you admit or deny any of the charges. ( 8 ) YOU are also informed that in case you do not submityour written statement of defence on or before the period prescribed as indicated above or if you do not appear in person before me or otherwise fail or refuse to comply in the enquiry the joint enquiry will be conducted against you ex-parte. Sd/- (C. Muniswamy) divisional Commissioner and Enquiry Authority under section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, Mysore. ANNEXURE-I statement of article of charges framed against Prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, professor and Head of the Department of English, University of Mysore and chairman, Board of Examiners in English for the Post-Graduate Examinations in Mysore University. Charge No. 1: that you, Prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, while working as the Chairman of board of Examiners in English during June-July 1983, University Examinations, deliberately tried to influence Dr. Shankar, one of the Internal Examiners for M. A. (previous) English, Paper III to alter the original marks viz. , 0' into 9' on the marks list in respect of Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, Register No. 16384/9664 and that Dr. Shankar is stated to have refused your suggestion. Charge No. 2: that you Prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, have obtained marks list unauthorisedly and illegally from the scrutiniscr one Mr. E. J. Ekambaram, Reader in English, institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education, Manasagangothri, mysore. You have attempted this commission in order to improve the result of Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, Register No. 16384/9664, from 3rd class to 2nd class by means of effecting the difference between Internal and External valuer by 20 and above. E. J. Ekambaram, Reader in English, institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education, Manasagangothri, mysore. You have attempted this commission in order to improve the result of Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, Register No. 16384/9664, from 3rd class to 2nd class by means of effecting the difference between Internal and External valuer by 20 and above. Obtaining the marks list from the scrutiniser directly amounts to unauthorised and illegal access to the marks list as you have attempted this without the knowledge of the Controller of Examinations. Since you have not succeeded in compelling Dr. Shankar to alter the marks as intended by you, Dr. Shankar, you have altered in the marks obtained by the candidate Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, in Paper III, valued by the External Examiner from "27" to "20" by erasing 7' and overwriting in its place "0" in collusion with Mr. E. J. Ekambaram, the Scrutiniser. This has been done with an intention to create a difference of more than 20' marks between the External and internal valuation for the purpose of making it eligible for Board Valuation, without the knowledge of the Controller of Examinations and further not following the usual procedure. This amounts to serious misconduct on your part as the Chairman of the Board of Examiners in English for the Post-Graduate examinations of Mysore University. Charge No. 3: further that you, Prof. H. H. Annaiah Gowda, have tampered the marks list as above and proceeded to value the paper in question in the Board of Examiners without the required reference by the Controller of Examinations with the sole intention of giving higher class to this particular candidate viz. , Smt. R. Jayalakshmi, Register No. 16384/9664 in Paper III English M. A. (Previous ). Thai in the Board of Examiners you gave "61" marks to the candidate by which the candidate had obtained 2nd class in place of the 3rd class originally obtained by her. Thus, you have committed a grave malpractice by tampering with the marks lists and illegally favouring the candidate to obtain a higher class than what she deserved. Sd/- (C. Muniswamy) divisional Commissioner and Enquiry Authority under section 8 of the Karnalaka State Universities Act, 1976, Mysore. " it was at this stage, the appellant came forward with W. P. No. 4679/1985 for a Writ of Cerliorari to quash the memo of charges. 6. Sd/- (C. Muniswamy) divisional Commissioner and Enquiry Authority under section 8 of the Karnalaka State Universities Act, 1976, Mysore. " it was at this stage, the appellant came forward with W. P. No. 4679/1985 for a Writ of Cerliorari to quash the memo of charges. 6. The only ground urged before the learned Single Judge was the Chancellor has no power to direct an enquiry into malpractice. If at all University was desirous of taking action against the appellant, it must be only as per ordinances framed under section 37 (f) of the Act and the Syndicate alone could initiate proceedings. In the instant case, the, Syndicate not only initialed proceedings but later withdrew. Therefore, the action by the Chancellor is not warranted under the Act. Section 8 cannot be invoked in this case because that talks of only the general power of the university and not to the individual examination. 7. The said contention was overruled by the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the writ appeal. 8. Before us, the learned counsel for he appellant drawing our attention to section 8, more particularly to sub-section (1) of Section 8, urges that the said sub-section consists of two parts, the first part enabling the Chancellor to conduct an inspection with regard to the specified matters. Even then it should be held relatable to the entire examination as such and not the individual examination or the so-called malpractices. Therefore, it that part of the sub-section cannot be availed of for ordering an inquiry, one should turn to latter half of the sub-section which speaks of inspection or inquiry. Such an inspection or inquiry talked of therein is in respect of any matter connected with the University, which means the enumeration of examination already having taken place in the first half, that cannot be brought in the second half as well. Therefore, it should follow that it should relate to any matter connected with the University and not to individual examination at all. From this point of view, if Section 8 of the Act does not enable the very enquiry to be made, more so in this case where the Syndicate which alone is the competent authority has initiated action and yet chosen to drop the same, the further action is not possible. From this point of view, if Section 8 of the Act does not enable the very enquiry to be made, more so in this case where the Syndicate which alone is the competent authority has initiated action and yet chosen to drop the same, the further action is not possible. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the University would urge that Section 8 (1) of the Act is comprehensive enough to lake not only the entire examination but even individual examination. What has it done here is that the Chancellor has received certain complaints about the malpractice alleged to have been committed by the appellant and he merely wants an enquiry to be made into the same. Certainly, it cannot be contended, that the examination is not a matter connected with the University. Be it the entire examination or individual examination, certainly having regard to the comprehensive language of Section 8, the Chancellor could not only cause an inspection but also an enquiry. This was a reasoning which prevailed with the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the University would commend the acceptance of that view. ( 10 ) MERELY because Section 37 enables framing of ordinances and confers powerson the Syndicate which is totally different, that does not in any way mitigate against the rigour of Section 8. Merely because the Syndicate has dropped the action, it cannot in any way dilute the power of the Chancellor under Section 8 (1) for causing an inspection and inquiry which is totally an independent power. After all, the chancellor as the Head of the University, has every right to see that the affairs of the university are conducted properly. ( 11 ) WE will now proceed to consider the merits of the above submissions. Forproper appreciation, we will do well to extract Section 8 (1) of the Act. "inspection and control: (1) The Chancellor shall, if so desired by the State Government and may, suo motu cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and equipment and any institution maintained, administered, recognised or approved by the University and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the university and to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the University. " (Rest of the sub-sections omitted as not necessary for our purpose) a careful reading of the above sub-section clearly indicates the power of the Chancellor with regard to inspection and control as the marginal note would have it. ( 12 ) AS to what is the position of the Chancellor is clear from Section 10 of the Act which reads thus: "10. The Chancellor. (1) The Governor of Karnataka shall by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University. (2) He shall be the Head of the University and shall when present, preside at the meetings of the. Senate and at any Convocation of the University. (3) He shall have such other powers as may be conferred on him by or under this Act or the Statutes. " section 10 (1) says that the Governor of Karnataka shall by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University. He is also the Head of the University as seen from sub-section (2 ). Under sub-section (3) his powers are as may be conferred on him by or under the Act or the Statutes. It is one of such power that is found in sub-section (1) of Section 8. He being the Head of the University, he is enabled even suo motu to cause an inspection of the University buildings, laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and equipment and any institution maintained, administered, recognised or approved by the University and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University. It cannot be said that a Head must concern himself with the general conduct of the examinations and not the individual examination. The argument in this regard, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, docs not appeal to us. ( 13 ) SUPPOSING the Chancellor received a complaint against a particular member of the teaching staff that he is irregular and in examination is showing favouritism, certainly this Court does not expect the Chancellor to turn his Nelson's eye and remain a silent spectator asking the University or Syndicate to take action. On the contrary, he would do well to inquire into such conduct of the particular member of the teaching staff. This is very clear from the first half of the sub-section (1) of section 8. On the contrary, he would do well to inquire into such conduct of the particular member of the teaching staff. This is very clear from the first half of the sub-section (1) of section 8. However, with regard to the inquiry, the matter presents no difficulty, because the latter half of the sub-section clearly says inspection and inquiry to be made in like manner and what are the matters in which inspection and inquiry could be ordered. Here, we find the language of the sub-section (1) of Section 8 is comprehensive in its scope because it says "in respect of any matter connected with the University". It stands to reason that examination is one of the matters connected with the University. There is no gain-saying in that. Where therefore, in respect of entire examination or even an individual examination if the Chancellor desires to cause an inquiry as in the instant case, we are unable to hold as to how the appellant could escape the rigour of this section. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act enables the Chancellor to cause an inquiry. ( 14 ) WITH this conclusion, we pass on to second argument advanced on behalf of the appellant as to the scope of Section 37. This section, to our mind is only an enabling section for framing ordinances. Of course, under Clause (f) of Section 37 ordinances can be framed for the conduct of examinations, including the term of office and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators. Merely because there is the ordinance which deals with the conduct of examination, that does not in any way preclude the Chancellor from exercising his power of control as a Head of University under Section 8, nor again as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the University, Section 37 does in any way militate against the power of the Chancellor under Section 8. ( 15 ) IN this case, no doubt, the Syndicate might have taken action and dropped the matter. That cannot again advance the case of the appellant because we are concerned only with the power of the Chancellor to cause an inquiry into malpractice or misconduct alleged against the appellant. Thus, we are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. No costs. That cannot again advance the case of the appellant because we are concerned only with the power of the Chancellor to cause an inquiry into malpractice or misconduct alleged against the appellant. Thus, we are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. No costs. We make it clear that our Judgment should not in any way be considered as having decided the matter on merits in relation to charges levelled against the appellant. We are informed that the enquiry had gone on and only the result of the inquiry has not been announced. Now, that we. have dismissed the writ appeal, the chancellor is at liberty to announce the result. --- *** --- .