SHYAMASUNDER, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case make very strange reading. I am more than satisfied that in this case the university has really one off the track in punishing the petitioner for (sick) compassionate act in misting another candidate who was looking the II year examination of the engineering course on 19-1-1990 and has since been punished for his mistaken generosity in helping the other person. It so transpires one rameshkumar dhull was taking the II year b. e. examination on 19-1-1990 at the m. s. ramaiah institute of technology. The petitioner who was then a student of the iv year engineering course at the same college, it appears, walked in, handed over a written answer script to dhull and took away the original answer script issued to dhull and this was noticed by the room invigilator who immediately made a report to the chief superintendent, Mr. Krishna Reddy, the principal of the college as per annexure-'r'. The chief superintendent in turn forwarded both the answer scripts i. e. one given (sic) at the examination hall and the other which was received by dhull from ranvir singh, the petitioner, for necessary action. Thereafter the university proceeded promptly to put this before the malpractice enquiry gommittee which held an enquiry into the alleged malpractice purported to have been committed by ranvir singh in having gone to the aid and assistance of that rameshkumar dhull. At the enquiry rameshkumar dhull and the principal of ramaiah college, prof. Krishna Reddy were examined. Ranvir singh denied having any hand in assisting rameshkumar dhull and also denied that he had substituted the answer script as per ex. d. 1. The reafter dhull who entered the witness box denied any acquaintance with ranvir singh or having seen him and went on to add, when the invigilator asked him to write the name of ranvir singh he wrote his name while making a written statement before the invigilator. Lastly, prof. Krishna Reddy was examined. He said he received a report from the invigilator and had forwarded it. In the cross-examination by dhull and ranvir singh he denied that ranvir singh's name had been written by dhull at the instance of the superintendent and that it had not been written by dhull. Lastly, prof. Krishna Reddy was examined. He said he received a report from the invigilator and had forwarded it. In the cross-examination by dhull and ranvir singh he denied that ranvir singh's name had been written by dhull at the instance of the superintendent and that it had not been written by dhull. (sic) to a question by ranvir singh, he said he did not know if ranvir singh was not in Bangalore on the date of incident at all. On these materials the malpractice enquiry committee came to the conclusion the allegation of having lent unnecessary assistance to an examinee at the examination centre as levelled against ranvir singh had been proved end he was liable to be punished. Accordingly they made an order directing that he should forfeit his own examination of the iv year b. e. course that had taken place in June 1990 and not merely that (sic) he should not be permitted to take 5 more examinations. This action is said to be in confirmity with the regulations of university. But then even taking the matter at its face value their appears to be a clear error since power of the university to punish a student who is found guilty of giving assistance at the examination by passing an answer script etc. , Etc , merits the punishment of denying the performance at the examination for which the candidate had appeared and as also being debarred for 3 more examinations under ordinance No. 8. 17-6 of the regulation going strictly by their Regulation, the penalty imposed on the petitioner appears to be not merely excessive but totally without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) BUT then Mr. Seshadri for the university says that he will be satisfied if I make an order confining it to the limits espoused by the regulations itself, that is rusticating him for 3 examination years instead of 5 examination as had been done. I do not see how I can accede to this submission as I find this (sic) a case in which the university had exceeded its powers in taking action on a person who could not have, in the circumstances be amenable for being dealt with by the university at all. ( 3 ) I have been taken through the format of the relevant regulations by Mr. Seshadri, learned counsel for the university. ( 3 ) I have been taken through the format of the relevant regulations by Mr. Seshadri, learned counsel for the university. These regulations have been framed by the university in virtue of the power vested in it define malpractice as follows :"8. (2v) : 'malpractices' includes any one or more of the following acts by a candidate appearing for the examinations held by the university. "regulation 8. 6 says :"communicating with any candidate or any other person in or outside the examination hall with a view to take assistance or aid to answer in the examination, is held to be a malpractice. The schedule appending to ordinance No. 8. 17 at No. 6 under which the university has the power to award a penalty reads as follows : 6. Found giving or receiving assistance at the examination; passing on the question paper/ answer script/ additional sheet for purpose of copying. To deny the benefit of performance of the examination for which the candidate has appeared and debar him/her for a further number of chances extending upto three more examinations. "a plain reading of the aforesaid regulations under the cover of which the university has purported to act makes it evident that the target of action stemming out of this charge can only be the examinee who was taking the examination at which the malpractice had occurred. There is nothing. In these regulations which render a person aiding, abetting the commission of the malpractice and in this case there is no doubt that if what is stated is true, i. e , the said dhull of receiving a tailor made answer script from the petitioner ranvir singh in place of his patch work, while it is certainly a malpractice but it is malpractice committed by dhull. It may be true that while committing that malpractice he was assisted by ranvir singh but under the regulations as they now stand ranvir singh could not be punished for the role played by him. I am, therefore, satisfied the punishment imposed on the petitioner ranvir singh is without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN the end Mr. Seshadri put forth a very motive plea based on a moral plane espousing the escalating level of misbehaviour by students in the examination hall and wanted me to take a stern view in these matters. I am, therefore, satisfied the punishment imposed on the petitioner ranvir singh is without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN the end Mr. Seshadri put forth a very motive plea based on a moral plane espousing the escalating level of misbehaviour by students in the examination hall and wanted me to take a stern view in these matters. I agree that sanctity of an examination is seriously imperilled by student misbehaviour. But then any punishment to be imposed in that behalf must be in accordance with law. Exercise of power some how and particularly when it is nonest cannot be countenanced by a court and that too the same on grounds of morality. In the result, this writ petition suceeds and is allowed. The punishment of rustication imposed on the petitioner by the university stands quashed. No order as to costs. Rule issued is affirmed. Mr. Shevgoor says his client may be permitted to appear for the final year examination commencing from 18-10-1990. Mr. Seshadri will ensure the petitioner does not encounter any difficulty in taking that examination. Notice to R-2 dispensed with. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .