M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned advocates on both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is alleged to have been caught red handed with a slip of paper while he was doing his d. Pharma examination in may, 1993 in the subject pharma chemistry ii theory. As a result of this, the results of the entire examination was withheld and an endorsement was issued that the petitioner is debarred because of the incident in question. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's contention is that the charge against him is incorrect and that if the authorities desire to take action on the ground that he has committed a malpractice that it was necessary for them to at least conduct a formal enquiry and establish the charge because the consequences are serious to the petitioner's career. The learned Advocate submits that up to the present point of time, no enquiry has been conducted nor has any order been passed to the effect that the petitioner has committed a malpractice. He therefore, submits that the entire action is unjustified and that the results be declared. The subsidiary submission is that at this point of time since almost three years have elapsed and that even assuming that the respondents were to hold an enquiry and assuming the worst insofar as if they are able to sustain the charge of malpractice against the petitioner, that the highest that could be done is that the petitioner could be debarred from appearing not only for that examination but for the two subsequent examinations. Under these circumstances, the learned Advocate submits that since that much of time has now long since elapsed that it is pointless holding any enquiry and secondly that by efflux of time, the petitioner is entitled to a direction that the results be declared. In this regard, learned Advocate has placed reliance on an earlier decision of this court in W. P. nos. 24371 to 24406 of 1991 disposed of on 20-4-1992, wherein the learned judge took the view that despite an allegation of mass copying in respect of one paper that the punishment be confined to that paper and that the results in the remaining papers be declared, the petitioners therein having been directed to reappear for the examinations in that subject. 24371 to 24406 of 1991 disposed of on 20-4-1992, wherein the learned judge took the view that despite an allegation of mass copying in respect of one paper that the punishment be confined to that paper and that the results in the remaining papers be declared, the petitioners therein having been directed to reappear for the examinations in that subject. ( 4 ) LEARNED government Advocate has submitted in the first instance that it is unnecessary in cases where students are caught red handed to hold any formal enquiries. He submitted that on record, the petitioner has no where disputed the fact that he was apprehended red handed with some material. In these circumstances, the authorities were justified in straight away imposing the punishment prescribed by the rules. It would be difficult and dangerous to uphold this submission because there may be numerous instances in which an allegation of being caught red handed is made but that allegation will have to be substantiated. If the student desires to deny the allegations or to defend oneself, an opportunity to that effect will have to be given. That requirement cannot be by passed insofar as the authorities themselves are bound to observe the principles of natural Justice before imposing the punishment. Therefore, this court considers as of necessity, to uphold the position that it would be incumbent on the part of the authorities to have held an enquiry after informing the petitioner of what the charge was against him and to substantiate the charge. The law is well-settled insofar as it is necessary wherein the basic procedure in consonance with the principles of natural Justice must be observed. That requirement cannot be bypassed. Insofar as the authorities have admittedly not held any enquiry against the petitioner, the imposition of the order debarring the petitioner from the entire examination was incorrect. It is true that this position has been considered by raveendran j. While deciding W. P. No. 3971 of 1994 on 9-3-1994 which proceeded on the footing that since the rules provide in such cases for the nullification of the whole examination where misconduct is established, that even though the enquiry was not held, the petitioner should be allowed to reappear since the maximum period for the punishment has since elapsed. The notice of that court was not drawn to one crucial fact, namely, that for the cancellation of the whole examination an adverse finding would be necessary. The court in the decision referred to by me supra allowed the petitioner to reappear for the whole examination on the ground that the earlier examination has been nullified by virtue of the fact that misconduct was alleged. Obviously, at that time, the aspect referred to by me was not brought to the notice of the court. The learned government Advocate has sought to submit that where rules prescribe for nullification of the whole examination if malpractice is established that it would be reasonable for the court to hold that the whole of the examination must be repeated. ( 5 ) IN the present instance, admittedly no enquiry was held. Raveendran j. Had left the liberty open to the authorities to hold an enquiry if they so desire even though considerable time has elapsed. Holding such an enquiry at a belated date would be of no consequence and in the circumstances granting such a liberty at this part of time is worthless; the main reason being that even in the event of an adverse finding, the period during which the punishment, namely, the bar of appearing for an examination has long since elapsed. In the circumstances, it would only be reasonable to provide that even if the rigour of the rules were to apply to the petitioner, that it can be as far as one subject viz. , Pharma chemistry ii is concerned, that the petitioner can be directed to reappear for that subject. As far as the remaining subjects are concerned, his results will have to be declared by the authorities. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall in compliance with the rules, complete all the subjectas successfully before he can claim issuance of the degree certificate. ( 6 ) PETITION succeeds. rule is made absolute to that extent. No order as to costs. The results in question be declared within an outer limit of four weeks from today. --- *** --- .