Judgment A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the punishment imposed by the Jainarayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (here-inafter to be referred to as the JNV University, Jodhpur) vide Anx. 3 dated 15-1-1993 whereby the petitioners examination for M. A. (Previous) in Psychology for the years 1993 and 1994 was cancelled. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a regular student of the JNV University, Jodhpur, and is studying in the M. A. (Previous) examination in the year 1992 on 11/02/1992. The petitioner was given the paper of Psychology I. A flying squad came and made a case of unfair means against the petitioner. He was given a show-cause notice on 21/07/1992 that since the flying squad has found in his possession incriminating material which was swallowed by him and what he has to say in the matter. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice and he contested that the story of the flying squad that he has swallowed the incriminat-ing material is without any basis. The Auth-orities after hearing the petitioner cancelled the Examination of 1992 and he was further debarred from appearing at the subsequent examination of 1993 and 1994. This order has been challenged by the petitioner by this writ petition on the basis of principle of natural justice. ( 3 ) A reply has been filed by the respon-dent University and respondent University has submitted that when the flying squad was taking the round, it found the petitioner copying and when the flying squad caught him, he swallowed the incriminating paper. Thereafter an inquiry was undertaken and petitioner was given an opportunity to explain. Thereafter the committee of unfair means after hearing petitioner cancelled the examinations of the petitioner of 1992, 1993 and 1994. ( 4 ) MR. Akashaya Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proper principles of natural justice were not followed by the respondent University as it has not examined any witness in support of the material, therefore, petitioner could not produce any witness in denial thereof. As such there is a breach of principle of natural justice. ( 4 ) MR. Akashaya Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proper principles of natural justice were not followed by the respondent University as it has not examined any witness in support of the material, therefore, petitioner could not produce any witness in denial thereof. As such there is a breach of principle of natural justice. ( 5 ) I have considered the matter, suffice it to say that the petitioner was given opportunity and in view of the fact that he has been found with the incriminating material by the flying squad and he was caught and thereafter papers were prepared and he signed on the papers, but he has resisted that he has not swallowed the incriminating material. In view of the report submitted by the flying squad duly verified by the Central Superintendent, petitioner has not produced anything cont-rary to show that the allegations made by the University are wrong. Simply harping on the question that there is a breach of principle of natural justice that is not sufficient. In view of the fact that the petitioner had incriminating material that is sufficient to show the guilt of he petitioner. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that his three years will be spoiled and the punishment would be too harsh. It is submitted that his examination of 1992 has already been cancelled and his examinations of 1993 and 1994 have also been cancelled. That will not be fair. Therefore, the petitioner may be treated leniently. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that the petitioners examination for 1992 has already been cancelled and 1993 has almost stood cancelled by passage of time, therefore, the ends of justice will be met if his Examinations for 1992 and 1993 are cancelled and he may be permitted to appear in the examination of 1994. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be in the fairness to reduce the punishment of the petitioner to the extent of cancellation of his M. A. (Previous) examina-tion for the years 1992 and 1993. Petitioner now will be entitled to appear for the examination in 1994. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with this minor modification. Order accordingly.