R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Unfair Means Committee, cancelling the result of the examination of B. A. Part II which was held in 1990 and in which the petitioner appeared. The petitioner was a regular student of Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad which is affiliated to the University of Allahabad. He had filled the Examination form for appearing in B. A. II of 1990 and he was allotted Roll No. 46626 and the subjects offered by him were Ancient History, Education and Military Science. On 9-8-1990 when the petitioner was answering the First paper of Ancient History, flying squad of the University of Allahabad visited the examination hall. The flying squad recovered a piece of paper containing hand script from inside the desk on which the petitioner had placed his answer book and was answering the question paper. The answer book of the petitioner was taken possession of by the flying squad along with the alleged paper recovered and thereafter action was taken against the petitioner and his examination for the year 1990 has been cancelled. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents cancelling his result. ( 2 ) IN this petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the University. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this petition may be finally disposed of at this stage. Shri Upadhyaya also placed before me the original record pertaining to the action taken against the petitioner. ( 3 ) I have perused the record thoroughly. On 9-8-1990 immediately after recovering the piece of paper from the desk certain questions were put to the petitioner. They were noted in the Form prescribed for giving information relating to use of unfair means during the examination. Though in his answer the petitioner admitted that the alleged paper was recovered from inside the desk but he denied very categorically that the alleged paper, belonged to him. In column 5 the examiner also recorded that from the said paper nothing has been copied in the answer book though it contained material relating to the paper concerned. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he submitted his reply. In column 5 the examiner also recorded that from the said paper nothing has been copied in the answer book though it contained material relating to the paper concerned. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he submitted his reply. Along with the counter affidavit, reply of the petitioner and information submitted in the prescribed form relating to the use of unfair means has been filed. In his explanation the petitioner has alleged that the paper was recovered from the ground and it appears that the paper was thrown by some of the students which was lying about a meter away from the petitioner and it was picked up by the flying squad. The petitioner was quietly answering the questions unmindful of the presence of the flying squad. The alleged paper was not in his handwriting nor anything was copied from the said paper in the answer book. A perusal of the answer book and the alleged paper) reveals that though the explanation of the petitioner that it was recovered from the ground was not correct as he admitted that the paper was recovered from inside the desk, however, the explanation of the petitioner that the script in the alleged paper was in different handwriting and nothing was copied from the alleged paper by the petitioner are correct. The action against the petitioner is wholly based on presumption contained in the definition 1. 2 (B) of Chapter 28 of the Ordinance. In view of the reply given by the petitioner that the paper was not in his handwriting and the admitted position that nothing was copied from it in the answer book, it was necessary for the Unfair Means Committee to record satisfaction that the paper belonged to the petitioner and it was used by him. The relevant Ordinance 1. 6 reads as under:-" 1. 6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1. 4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1. 5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter. "the order of the Unfair Means Committee, however, does not contain any such satisfaction regarding the vital aspects of the case. The order is written on a printed form on which the columns have been filled in a mechanical manner. 5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter. "the order of the Unfair Means Committee, however, does not contain any such satisfaction regarding the vital aspects of the case. The order is written on a printed form on which the columns have been filled in a mechanical manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Unfair Means Committee ought to have recorded a clear finding that the paper belonged to the petitioner and it was intended to be used by him. In the absence of such finding the petitioner could not be punished and be deprived of the benefit of the examination. He was given a second copy and he answered all the questions at his own. ( 4 ) THIS Court in a case reported in Km. Arti Srivastava v. Chancellor University of Allahabad (1989) 1 UPLBEC 79 : 1988 All LJ 1401 has held that the charge must be proved beyond doubt and the findings should be supported by reasons and in accordance with the obligations set in Ordinance 1. 6. The legal position as explained in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly a Division Bench of this Court of Lucknow bench in the case Rameshwar Prasad Mishra v. The Lucknow University, Lucknow reported in 1983 UPLBEC 175 has held that in absence of any finding that the paper actually belonged to the petitioner and was being used by the petitioner neither Regulation 6 nor 2 could be attracted. With these findings the order cancelling the result of the petitioner in that case was set aside. The Division Bench also relied on the two other Division Bench cases reported in 1982 All LJ 55 and 1982 Lucknow LJ 87. I am in respectful agreement with the legal position expressed in the aforesaid cases decided by the learned single Judge and Division Bench of this Court and in my opinion the order passed against the petitioner cancelling his result of 1990 B. A. Part II Examination cannot be sustained, for the reason that no finding has been recorded to the vital aspect involved in the case as to whether the paper actually belonged to the petitioner. The presumption raised under the definition clause of the Ordinance No. 1. The presumption raised under the definition clause of the Ordinance No. 1. 2 is a rebuttable presumption and considering the summary nature of enquiry held against the petitioner, the initial presumption raised stood rebutted on the denial of the petitioner that the alleged paper belong to him or was he aware of the same and intended to use the same. The Unfair Means Committee was under obligation to record reasons to justify the action against the petitioner as to how on the basis of the material before it, it could be held that the paper actually belonged to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the possibility that the alleged paper was put inside the desk by some other candidate could not be ruled out and the petitioner was wholly ignorant of the material lying inside the desk. The alleged paper could be put inside the desk by any other student and this reference is corroborated by the fact that the script in the paper is not in the handwriting of the petitioner. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds and the order dated 8-1-1991 cancelling the result of the petitioner in the B. A. Part II Examination of 1990 is quashed and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .