JUDGMENT : M.L. Bhat, J. Sixteen students who have been found guilty for using unfair means in the examination, have been punished. They pray that the orders dated 25-1-91 and 2-2-91 annexed to the writ petition, be quashed as being bad in law. 2. From the facts it emerges that the Petitioners had appeared in the 3rd year Examination of Secondary Technical Course from different trades. Physics Ist paper is a common paper in all the trades. All the Petitioners have common subjects which number 13. The allegation against all the Petitioners is that they have used unfair means in Science Ist paper and as such the result of each and every Petitioner was cancelled and each Petitioner was directed to take fresh admission in the 3rd year course. In the charge-sheet served on the Petitioner it is stated that they have attended same questions which were attended by other students whose roll numbers are given in the charge-sheet and have committed same mistakes while solving the questions of science paper which were committed by the other students whose roll numbers are given in the charge-sheet. 3. The Petitioners were directed to appear before the examination committee which was making enquiry into the allegations of use of unfair means against the Petitioners on 31-12-90. In order to give effective reply the Petitioners had prayed for permission to peruse original copy of their written papers. They denied the allegation of resorting to use of unfair means. Respondent No. 1 is said to have refused to make available the copies of the answer books to the Petitioners pertaining to the subjects in which they are said to have used unfair means. The enquiry as such is against the principles of natural justice. The charges are said to be vague and there is no evidence that the Petitioners have used unfair means in the examination hall. There is no report of the invigilator or the Superintendent of the examination hall against the Petitioners. The examination committee is said to have acted mechanically without application of mind. It is submitted that the Petitioners were given a piece of chit and they were directed to solve some questions and on the basis of these chits of papers the enquiry decision was taken. The examination committee is said to have acted mechanically without application of mind. It is submitted that the Petitioners were given a piece of chit and they were directed to solve some questions and on the basis of these chits of papers the enquiry decision was taken. The Petitioners have stated further that some of students who were similarly circumstanced with the Petitioners have been exonerated of use of unfair means though they were also charge-sheeted for use of unfair means along with the Petitioners. 4. In the counter-affidavit the Respondents have denied the assertions of the Petitioners in the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed. The Respondents have stated that some of the students were exonerated because their reply to the charge sheet was found convincing. 5. At the time of hearing of the case original record was shown to me and relevant answer books were also brought by Mr. Saxena, the Standing Counsel in the Court. On consideration and examination of the record it was found that unfair means committee had also drawn its conclusion from the record. The original record consists of answer books of number of students with regard to some subjects and in these answer books the unfair means committee has found that various students had committed identical mistakes and on the basis of that it had inferred that mass copying had taken place during the examination. The documents prepared by the unfair means committee indicate the roll numbers of the students who had committed identical mistakes and the charge sheet framed against the students also indicates the roll numbers with whom each Petitioner is said to have copied the answers because the mistakes committed by the each student are identical with the mistakes committed by those whose roll numbers are given in the charge-sheet. There is, however, material discrepancy in the roll number as given by the unfair means committee in the documents prepared by them and in roll numbers as shown in the charge-sheet. To illustrate this point it is necessary to give details of a few Petitioner who are said to have committed the same mistakes while solving the question paper as were committed by other students whose roll numbers are given in the charge-sheet. 6. To illustrate this point it is necessary to give details of a few Petitioner who are said to have committed the same mistakes while solving the question paper as were committed by other students whose roll numbers are given in the charge-sheet. 6. Petitioner No. 1 Parmendra Pal who had appeared under roll number 20991 is said to have used unfair means by copying from answer book of roll numbers 20987, 20990, 20991, 20980, 20989, 20978, 20981, 20998, 20986 21017, 21004 and 21001. But the original record prepared by unfair means committee shows that result of Petitioner No. 1 has been cancelled because he is said to have copied from roll No. 21016. His answers have been found similar to the answers given by the said roll number and there are similar Mistakes committed by him. Only one roll number is given in the original record prepared by the unfair means committee from whom the Petitioner No. 1 had copied his question Nos. 3 and 10 While looking to the charge-sheet against Petitioner No. 1 it appears that he was charged for having copied from the answer book of 12 students. Therefore, this fundamental discrepancy which has been brought to the notice of the court by the Respondents throws sufficient doubt on the correctness of the charge-sheet framed against the Petitioner which he was required to answer. The charge-sheet is not vague only but seems to exaggerated materially by inflating the number of students from whose answer books the Petitioner is alleged to have copied. Obviously the Petitioner could not have replied to a vague charge which was not based on facts. 7. Petitioner No. 2 is Vijai Kumar who had appeared under roll No. 21010. He is charged to have copied from roll numbers 21990, 21018, 23006, 20978, 20990, 20991, 20980, 20987, 20917, 21026, 20979, 20996 and 20999 In the record prepared by the unfair means committee, he is said to have copied part of question Nos. 4, 9 and 10 from roll Number 21990 only Common mistakes have been found in solving this part of questions between two roll numbers but the charge-sheet would show that he is alleged to have copied from answer books of 11 candidates in respect of part of the questions which are shown as 6, 4 and 9. 4, 9 and 10 from roll Number 21990 only Common mistakes have been found in solving this part of questions between two roll numbers but the charge-sheet would show that he is alleged to have copied from answer books of 11 candidates in respect of part of the questions which are shown as 6, 4 and 9. The charge-sheet is doubtful, vague and highly exaggerated, appears to have been prepared mechanically The Petitioner obviously must have not been able to file an effective reply against a vague charge-sheet which is not based on facts. 8. Petitioner No. 3 Kamlesh Kumar Singh had appeared in the examination under Roll Number 20984 He is charge-sheeted to have copied from 16 students in respect of part of question Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10, but the record shows that he had copied in respect of part of question Nos. 3 and 5 only from the answer books of five students above. The charge-sheet, therefore, is either incorrect or highly exaggerated but definitely there is discrepancy between the charge-sheet and the record of the committee produced before the court. In respect of question also there is mistake. The Petitioner, therefore, must not have been able to file effective reply to the charge-sheet. 9. The Petitioner No. 4 Ashok Kumar who had appeared under Roll Number 20981, is said to have been charged for having copied from answer books of 11 students while solving part of question Nos. 3, 8 and 10, but the record reveals that he had copied from only five students in respect of part of Question Nos. 3 and 5 alone. The copying is inferred because there are similar mistakes while solving part of question Nos. 3 and 5 by the students. The charge-sheet in this case is also exaggerated and description of question is also wrong The Petitioner must have been unable to give effective reply to the charge. 10. The Petitioner No. 5 is Parmanand Kushwaha who had appeared under Roll No. 20992. He is charged for having copied answers to part of question Nos. 3 and 7 from 14 students. In the record prepared by the unfair means committee the mistakes committed by him in solving part of question Nos. 7 and 10 are similar to the mistakes committed by two students only. He is charged for having copied answers to part of question Nos. 3 and 7 from 14 students. In the record prepared by the unfair means committee the mistakes committed by him in solving part of question Nos. 7 and 10 are similar to the mistakes committed by two students only. The identity of students is exaggerated and the questions are also stated wrongly in which mistakes are found identical. 11. In respect of all the students who are Petitioners before the court, the charge sheets are incorrect, vague and exaggerated in respect of material facts. It is exaggerated in respect of number of students from whose they are alleged to have copied solution to the questions which have identical mistakes and the questions shown in the charge-sheet are also not correct. The record prepared by the unfair means committee gives different story which materially contradicts the charge-sheet in respect of aforesaid two important points i.e. identity of students and number of questions in question papers. 12. I had asked the opposite side to explain the discrepancies between the charge sheet and the record by my order dated 27-1-92. Opportunity was given to the opposite side to explain the record prepared by the unfair means committee on the basis of which the Petitioners have been punished and its material contradiction with the charge-sheet. The opposite side, however, was not able to explain the discrepancies and it is in fairness stated by the standing counsel that whatever is on the record, that cannot be altered or improved upon. 13. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners seem to be well founded On the basis of vague and incorrect charges which are highly exaggerated about the material facts, the Petitioners cannot be expected to tender any reply Even the answers which contain identical mistakes are in relation to the questions which are not correctly mentioned in the charge-sheet and their numbering is partly incorrect in respect of each and every students. 14. 14. The students were not found copying in the examination hall, nor were they found using unfair means by the invigilator or the Superintendent, on the basis of vague charge sheet they could not explain the common mistakes between the answers tendered by them and those tendered by some of the students The charge was incorrect and vague, therefore they must have been prevented from giving convincing reply. The answer books were not shown to them before punishment was imposed on them. Had these answer books been shown to them they would have probably been able to explain the true position to the unfair means committee. 15. The punishment imposed on the Petitioners seems to be based on incorrect charge-sheet, vague allegation and has been imposed without giving them proper opportunity. The charge sheets are so vague and incorrect that it was not possible for the Petitioners to make an effective reply to the said wrong charge-sheet. The enquiry committee does not seem to have perused the charge-sheets. They are said to have prepared their own record. If that is believed then the allegations in the charge-sheet are absolutely wrong. Any way there are material contradictions between the charge sheet framed against the Petitioners and the record prepared by the unfair means committee Its benefit cannot be given to the Respondents. 16. The similarity of mistakes while solving the questions being identical in the answer books of some of the students is not by itself a ground on which the court can conclude that there has been use of unfair means. The inference of use of unfair means drawn in the present case by the unfair means committee is not warranted and is unjustified. The penalty imposed on the Petitioners, is therefore, vitiated for the reasons stated above. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. By a writ of certiorari the orders dated 25-1-91 and 2-2-91 annexed to the writ petition by which the punishment is imposed on the Petitioners, is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus to declare the IIIrd year result of the Petitioners of Secondary Technical course held in the year 1990 within two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioners before the concerned authority. 18. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.