A. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) KESHAV Prasad Yadav, petitioner herein has taken recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek quashing of an order dated l 2-9-95 passed by Controller of examinations, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi whereby petitibnersb. Com. (Hon.) Part III,1994-95 examination has been cancelled on the ground of misconduct. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a regular student of D. A. V. Degree College, Varanasi; an affiliated college of the University. He passed Part I and Part II examinations of B. Com. (Hon) from D. A. V. College and in 1994-95 he appeared in B. Com. (Hon.) Part III examination which was scheduled to be held between 19-7-95 and 16-8-95. On 28-7-1995 petitioner appeared in Elective A Paper III in the college centre. Though it was reported to the university by the centre superintendent that petitioner ran away on 28-7-95 from the examination hall without depositing his answer book which was given to him in the examination hall but petitioner unabated appeared in the following examinations on 3-8-95, 8-8-95 and 14-8-95 and also in the interview (viva-voce) which was held in the last on 16-8-95 as per examination schedule. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 12-8-95 accusing him of misconduct with the allegation that he ran away with his answer book of Elective A III Paper on 28-7-85 the notice which is annexure 5 to the writ petition reads as follows :- "registered BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYOffice of the Controller of Examinations Ref No. CE/u-95/317dated 22-8-95 Shri Keshav Prasad Yadavk 61/109 Saptsagar Bulanala Varanasi-IExamination : Elective A, Paper III of B. Com. (H.) Pt. III Exam. 1995held on 28-7-95 Roll No. 4754 I have been reported that you appeared in the above mentioned examination, An answer book for the days examination was issued to you. You did not deposit the said answer book to the invigilator on duty and left the examination hall taking with you the answer book issued to you. The above acts constitute breach of discipline and misconduct. You are hereby asked to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against you. Your written reply should reach the undersigned on or before 30-8-95 failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS" Copy for information to :1/ The Principal, D. A. V. Degree College, Varanasi. You are hereby asked to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against you. Your written reply should reach the undersigned on or before 30-8-95 failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS" Copy for information to :1/ The Principal, D. A. V. Degree College, Varanasi. 2/ Shri Chaman Lal Yadavk 61/109 Saptsagar, Bulanala Varanasi. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONSAfter receiving the notice petitioner filed his straight forward reply denying the accusation that he bled away with the answer book; he asserted that as usual he deposited his answer book with the concerned invigilator within the examination time, the reply given by petitioner is as follows :dated 28-8-95fromkeshav Prasad Yadavk. 61/109 Saptnagar, Bulanalavaranasito The Controller of Examinations Controller of Examinations Office B. H. U. Dear Sir,ref : Your letter No. GE/u-95/317 dated 22-8-95i, am Keshav Prasad Yadav was a bonafide and a regular student of D. A. V. Degree College, B. H. U. The Charge against me that I did not deposit the answer book of the Elective A, Paper III of B. Com. (H.) Part III Examination, 1995, is totally baseless and false. On the above mentioned date (28-7-95, as the regular practice I got an answer book and within the time of examination I submitted the answer book to the concerned invigilator on duty. And it is also a factless and blunder charge that I left the examination hall taking with my answer book. I cleared my position very thoroughly and factly, so I think that you will not take any disciplinary action against me. Looking forward for an early and favourable step. Yours Sincerely, (Keshav Pd. Yadav.)" The matter against petitioner was taken up by the university as a case of use of unfair means in the examination. Accordingly, the unfair means committee recommended cancellation of petitioners 1994-95 examination and administration of severe warning. Accordingly the controller; respondent no. 2 issued the order awarding the punishment to the petitioner on the lines as recommended in the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner sought clarification and also expressed his anguish against the punishment given to him. He also prayed that he may be allowed to appear in the supplementary examination of Elective A, III Paper of B. Com. 2 issued the order awarding the punishment to the petitioner on the lines as recommended in the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner sought clarification and also expressed his anguish against the punishment given to him. He also prayed that he may be allowed to appear in the supplementary examination of Elective A, III Paper of B. Com. (Hon.) Part III which was scheduled to be held on 23-11-95, but the university rejected his request on the ground that in the light of the punishment awarded to him he was not eligible to appear in the supplementary examination and further that the University Rules too did not permit petitioners appearance. ( 3 ) ( 4 ) DURING the course of hearing of this case petitioners request for permission to appear in the supplementary examination was considered and by order dated 21- 11 -1995 he was allowed by this Court to appear in Elective A, Paper III of B. Com. (Hon) Part III examination which was held on 23-11-1995. Petitioner has accordingly appeared in that examination. ( 5 ) CONTENTION which has been pressed before me by Shri R. C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold, firstly that though the University charged the petitioner of breach of discipline and misconduct calling upon him by means of show cause notice dated 22-8-95 as to why disciplinary action be not taken against the petitioner, but what has been done by the University is that petitioner has been punished for use of unfair means in the examination of B. Com. (Hon.) Part III, 1995 Elective A Paper III dated 28-7-1995. The second contention of petitioners learned counsel is that the so called examination (Unfair Means) Committee did not take notice of petitioners examination and without applying its mind to his reply given to the show cause notice it passed a mechanical order only on the report engineered against the petitioner so as to cover the loss of petitioners answer book on account of negligence of the college authorities; according to the learned counsel the accusation which was made against petitioner in the show cause notice deserved proper enquiry so as to find out truth of the matter specially in view of the petitioners version that he did not run away with his answer book and had handed it over to the concerned invigilator within the examination hours. ( 6 ) ON the other hand Shri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel of the University will contend that notice given to the petitioner calling upon him to explain against the proposed disciplinary action is fully covered within the meaning of term "unfair means" as defined by Para 1. 13. 1 of the University Ordinance and, therefore, the notice cannot be said to be bad on that ground. His second contention is that the Universitys Unfair Means Committee after duly considering petitioners explanation and the charges levelled on him had recommended for awarding the punishment in question on the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner is vitiated due to non-application of mind or mechanical exercise of power by the University. It was further contended by Sri Naqvi that this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not quash the order in question only for the reason that detailed enquiry in the matter of the charges levelled on the petitioner was not held specially when there was no material before the university to doubt the version of the invigilator and also the X Centre Superintendent of the examination both of whom had reported that petitioner had fled away from the examination hall without depositing his answer book with the invigilator. According to the learned counsel calling for the explanation from petitioner by means of the notice dated 22-8-95 and consideration of his reply by the Unfair Means Committee of the University was the maximum which the University in the circumstances of the case could have done. According to the counsel the University Rules as also the Rules of natural justice do not require the University to do more than what has been done by it in the present case. ( 7 ) NOW, I take up the first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner. ( 8 ) ORDINANCE 1. 13. 1 of the University Ordinance defines "unfair practice". It is inclusive definition. According to it any act which tends to give undue advantage to, or improperly affects, an examinee in matters of the performance at the examination or evaluation of the performance. In the fold of the meaning given by clause A (i) of the Ordinance clause (ii) in its sub clauses (a) to (j) has enumerated many other situations which may also amount to unfair practice. In the fold of the meaning given by clause A (i) of the Ordinance clause (ii) in its sub clauses (a) to (j) has enumerated many other situations which may also amount to unfair practice. Emphasis, however, has been given by the Universitys learned counsel on sub-clause (a) which reads as follows :"all such acts and omissions connected with examinations as have been in the past the subject matter of disciplinary action in the University. "however, the learned counsel has not been able to show that earlier the charge on which petitioner has been punished has been in the past the subject matter of disciplinary action in the University. Clause (b) abatetment of unfair practice itself is an unfair practice. Clause (c) makes conspiracy to further the interest of an examinee by resorting to unfair practice as an unfair practice, Clause (d) makes possession of unauthorised material including books, papers connected with the examination an unfair practice, Clause (e) makes communicating information in the examination premises an unfair practice; according to Clause (f) impersonation in examination is unfair practice; whereas according to Clause (g) tampering with, or substitution of Admit card, answer book, question papers and other examination documents is termed as unfair practice; Clause (h) makes communication with examiner or with persons connected with the examination so as to obtain undue advantage etc. unfair practice; lastly as per Clause (i) violation of a direction given by an appropriate authority of the University in connection with the examination which is duly notified too has been termed as unfair practice. ( 9 ) PARA 1. 13. 2 of the Ordinance prohibits a candidate at the university examination from bringing in the examination hall any books notes etc. which is capable of being used by him in connection with the examination, it also prohibits the candidate from communicating and receiving any information from any other candidate in the examination hall. Para 1. 13. 3 prohibits a candidate from assisting or receiving assistance from any other candidate in the Examination. . . so as to further his interest in the examination; similarly ordinance 1. 13. 4 bars any one from adopting any unfair practice either to further or adversely affect the interests of an examinee or indulge in acts which interfere with the proper conduct of examination. Clause-B of Ordinance 1. 13. . . so as to further his interest in the examination; similarly ordinance 1. 13. 4 bars any one from adopting any unfair practice either to further or adversely affect the interests of an examinee or indulge in acts which interfere with the proper conduct of examination. Clause-B of Ordinance 1. 13. 1 provides that an act which affects the peace and tranquility of the examination premises, results in violation of directions of the invigilator and other officers connected with the examination. . . . . . and creates tension amongst examinees shall be deemed to be an act to interfere with the proper conduct of examination. ( 10 ) A glance of the provisions of the ordinance dealing with the definition of unfair practice clearly establish that such of the acts of a candidate which further his prospects in the examination are termed as unfair practice, apart from this other acts which creates disturbance in the proper conduct of the examination too is termed as "unfair practice. " ( 11 ) NOWHERE in the ordinances there is any mention that in case an examinee goes away with the answer book and does not deposit it with the invigilator he will be guilty of unfair practice. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, however for the purposes of this case I would not like to hold that if a candidate runs away with his answer book he cannot be said to be guilty of unfair practice. There may be material to substantiate the view but unfortunately, it has not been placed before me obviously for the reason that the University did not file a detailed counter-affidavit but a short counter affidavit. It was the duty of the University to have placed before the Court entire available information so as to enable this Court to come to a correct conclusion specially when decision given by this Court have far reaching consequences in the administration of the University examinations. ( 13 ) IN the light of the above discussion I do not agree with petitioners learned counsel that the misconduct attributed in the show cause notice against the petitioner does not amount to use of unfair means or unfair practice. ( 14 ) COMING to the second contention I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel. ( 13 ) IN the light of the above discussion I do not agree with petitioners learned counsel that the misconduct attributed in the show cause notice against the petitioner does not amount to use of unfair means or unfair practice. ( 14 ) COMING to the second contention I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel. From the perusal of the show cause notice, its reply filed by petitioner and the proceedings of the unfair means committee, I find myself unable to agree with the respondents learned counsel that University did the most which it was obliged by law to do in the matter of petitioner. ( 15 ) ORDINANCE No. 1. 13. 5 requires that violations of Ordinances 1. 13. 2 to 1. 13. 4 shall be reported by the invigilator to the Centre Superintendent in a prescribed form as soon as he comes to know of such violation. Though petitioners case comes (by streaching the provision) in Ordinance 1. 13. 4 but the invigilator has not reported to the Centre Superintendent in the prescribed form that petitioner had disappeared or had run away with his answer book from the examination hall. It is not the case of respondent University that it has not prescribed any form for the purpose of Ordinance No. 1. 13. 5 not its case is that such information was tendered to the Centre Superintendent by the invigilator in the prescribed form. The respondents on the other hand have filed a photostat copy of a hand written letter bearing no date with illegible signatures of Manik Chand Pandey, Virendra Kumar Singh, who as per respondents case in the short-counter affidavit were the invigilators. In the letter which is addressed to the Centre Superintendent of Dayanand Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi it has been reported that petitioner had run away with his answer book at the time when they were collecting the answer books of the examinees. ( 16 ) ORDINANCE No. 1. 13. 6 requires the Centre Superintendent to give the examinee an opportunity to submit a written explanation on the prescribed form. ( 17 ) IN the present case the Centre Superintendent did not call the petitioner to give his written explanation as is required by Ordinance No. 1. 13. 6. ( 16 ) ORDINANCE No. 1. 13. 6 requires the Centre Superintendent to give the examinee an opportunity to submit a written explanation on the prescribed form. ( 17 ) IN the present case the Centre Superintendent did not call the petitioner to give his written explanation as is required by Ordinance No. 1. 13. 6. The Centre Superintendent instead has sent a report in a type written letter to the Controller of examinations on the day the matter was allegedly reported to him by the invigilators in which he too has stated that petitioner had fled away with his written answer books from examination room No. 14. ( 18 ) THERE is no explanation in the counter affidavit as to why petitioner was not required by the Centre Superintendent to give his explanation in the manner provided by the ordinances, neither any reason has come-forth for not reporting the matter by the invigilators in the manner provided by the Ordinances. Reading of Ordinances 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6 would suggest that as soon as the examinee is found having committed unfair practice or any other misconduct at an examination the invigilator concerned is underduty to report to the Centre Superintendent in the prescribed form the violation of the examination Rule by that student and the Centre Superintendent is required to take the written explanation of the causes of the violation from the examinee concerned in a prescribed form at the earliest possible opportunity. In normal course the invigilator and the Centre Superintendent must have discharged their duty in the manner required of them by the Ordinances. But it was-not done. Neither the alleged violation of the Ordinances committed by petitioner was reported by the invigilators in the manner required by the Ordinances nor the Centre Superintendent as required by Ordinance No. 1. 13. 6 called the petitioner to give his explanation of that violation. Why it was not done is not explained by respondents. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances as to why the requirement of the provisions of Ordinances 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6 were not complied in petitioners case a doubt is obviously created as to whether the violation with which the petitioner has been charged and was punished did or did not occur. Had it occurred in the normal course their proceedings as required by ordinance Nos. 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6 were not complied in petitioners case a doubt is obviously created as to whether the violation with which the petitioner has been charged and was punished did or did not occur. Had it occurred in the normal course their proceedings as required by ordinance Nos. 1. 14. 5 and 1. 13. 6 would have been adopted. If those proceedings in the manner provided were not adopted it becomes doubtful whether the violation of the ordinance attributed to the petitioner occurred or not. ( 19 ) IN his reply petitioner point blank denied the charge of violation of the examination rules. He was called after a lapse of 26 days to give his explanation of the violation by the Controller of Examinations of the University. Petitioner should have been required to do so on the earliest opportunity by the Examination Superintendent as provided by Ordinance No. 1. 13. 6 on the earliest opportunity which in the present case was 3-8-95 when petitioner appeared in the next paper. Why the petitioner was not confronted with the charge of the violation of examination Rule on 3-8-95 by the Centre Superintendent is not known as no explanation or reason in that respect has been given by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Had petitioner been confronted with the charge by the Centre Superintendent on the next possible opportunity, in the manner provided by the ordinances the petitioner would have been in a better position to prove that he had deposited the answer book with the invigilator because the invigilator with whom petitioner is said to have deposited the answer book on 28-7-95 would be available for confirmation of the actual position. Instead in the instant case petitioners denial of the charge was not verified nor it could be verified after lapse of such a long time of over 26 days. The fact that petitioner was not confronted with the charge of the violation of the examination rules that he had run away with his written answer book on 28-7-1995 by the Centre Superintendent on the next available opportunity on 3-8-85 in absence of a cogent reason from respondents to the contrary is clearly indicative of the fact that by that date the Centre Superintendent was himself not aware of the matter at all. Had he been aware of the fact that petitioner had run away with his written answer book on 28-7-95 he would have certainly as required by ordinance called the petitioner on 3-8-95 to give his explanation. ( 20 ) AS a matter of fact no such explanation was called from the petitioner by the Centre Superintendent though petitioner appeared in the examination 3-8-95, 8-8-95, 14-8-95 and 16-8-95 why it was not done? The obvious answer is that the Centre Superintendent was not reported of the matter till then. ( 21 ) IN paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been suggested by the petitioner that to cover up the loss of his answer book of Elective A, paper III due to negligence of invigilator and other officials on examination duty he has wrongfully been charged with the violation of the examination Rules. No reply to this suggestion made by the petitioner has been given in the counter-affidavit. The suggestion given by the petitioner could not have been ignored as it gathers substance from the inordinate delay which was caused by the university in confronting the petitioner of the charge of the violation of examination Rules and that too not in the manner as is provided by the ordinances. ( 22 ) THE committee which was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor to consider petitioners case and to recommend punishment which was to be, awarded to him too was under duty to have taken notice of the above short-comings and lacunae in the proceedings which were taken against the petitioner specially when petitioner had not admitted the charge and had denied it point blank. The charge was levelled on the petitioner vide letter dated 22-8-1995 which was sent to him by the Controller of the university examinations. In that letter petitioner had not been told as to who reported the incident to him. The charge was levelled on the petitioner vide letter dated 22-8-1995 which was sent to him by the Controller of the university examinations. In that letter petitioner had not been told as to who reported the incident to him. The reports allegedly sent by invigilators and the Centre Superintendent on 28-7-1995 were not supplied to the petitioner with the letter of Controller of examination so as to enable the petitioner to know that the charge of taking away of the answer book on 28-7-95 levelled on him was based on the reports sent to the Controller on 28-7-95 by the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent, why the show cause notice was sent by the Controller of examinations to the petitioner with such a great delay too is not known. If the incident was reported on 28-7-95 itself the show cause notice for confronting petitioner of the violation allegedly committed by him should normally have been served on him by the Controller at the earliest possible opportunity and not after the incident had become stale and forgotten to everyone. The opportunity which is contemplated to be given to examinee by the Ordinance 1. 13. 6 was denied to the petitioner. ( 23 ) WHY the show cause notice as required by Ordinance No. 1. 13. 6 was not served on the petitioner by the Centre Superintendent immediately after 28-7-95 in the form prescribed and why it was delayed for such a long time as 22-8-95 and was served by the Controller of examinations clearly gives credence to the suggestion made by the petitioner in the writ petition that cover up steps were taken in the matter after the loss of petitioners answer book of Elective A, paper III was detected at the university Ievel. But this Court should not deliver judgment on mere speculations. Nothing concrete is there on record to accept petitioners suggestion, neither there is good reason to accept and believe the version of the university given in the charge sheet served on the petitioner. Neither there was anything before the committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor to accept the version of invigilator and the Centre Superintendent and to reject that of the petitioner regarding the charge levelled on the petitioner specially when the charge was not supported with the requisite information and proceedings in the manner provided by Ordinance Nos. 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6. 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6. It was the duty of the committee to have given appropriate opportunity to the petitioner so as to meet the charge in the background of the reports submitted by invigilators and the Centre Superintendent against him. Had the information sent to the Centre Superintendent by invigilators and by the Centre Superintendent to the university was made known to the petitioner, petitioner would have been in a position to know the exact charge which was levelled on him and the source it came from so that he may have been in a better position to meet it by challenging that report coupled with a demand to confront the invigilators vis-a-vis his stand taken by him in his reply to the effect that he had deposited his written answer book to the invigilator on duty within the examination time. ( 24 ) THE Committee, however, totally ignored all those essential aspects of fairness and in a blind folded manner without even rejecting petitioners version for some cogent reason whatsoever, mechanically made recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for awarding the punishment under challenge which was accepted presumably by the Vice Chancellor too in a blind-folded manner. ( 25 ) THE material which is available before me on the record, however, does not show that the order awarding the impugned punishment on the petitioner was passed by the Vice Chancellor who happens to be the competent authority. The letter of the Controller of examinations by which the punishment has been communicated to the petitioner too does not give any hint in this regard. ( 26 ) BE that as it may the Vice-Chancellor if he passed the order for awarding the impugned punishment on the petitioner too was under a legal duty to have considered the charges levelled on the petitioner, the manner in which it was reported and the proceedings which followed in that regard, the reply of petitioner and the material which impelled the committee appointed by him to accept the version given in the chargesheet and to reject petitioners version refuting that charge. ( 27 ) IF the Vice-Chancellor too does not apply his mind before awarding punishment on an examinee adversely affecting his career, I am afraid such a punishment cannot be saved on the ground that university or other educational authorities should be left alone to administer their institution and ensure discipline amongst students in their respective campuses and institutions. ( 28 ) CERTAINLY Vice-Chancellor has the power and liberty to manage the university and colleges affiliated to it so as to ensure strict discipline amongst the students in the respective campuses, but this power has its own checks and balances. ( 29 ) EDUCATIONAL authorities too while exercising their statutory power to maintain discipline amongst the students are under constitutional duty to act fairly and reasonably and not to act arbitrarily. Article 14 of the Constitution read with Article 21 forbids arbitrary action on the part also on administrators of universities and other educational institutions. They too are not allowed to take arbitrary action against students for maintaining discipline which may have adverse impact on their educational career. They are required to comply with the rules of audi alteram partem, which is the minimum which must be done by them too. The action taken by them must show that the same was the result of a fair and unbiased enquiry conducted in due compliance of Rules regulating the award of punishment. If the enquiry is not made in a fair manner and the proceedings that were taken leading to the award of punishment were not conducted in the manner provided by Rules and there is any indication of unfairness in the action taken for awarding the punishment in question this Court exercising power for ensuring the guarantee of fairness to the citizen will immediately step in and quash such orders; the plea of autonomy of university or maintenance of discipline in the campus notwithstanding. ( 30 ) NO student can be crucified so as to be deprived of his legal right to pursue his studies in the name of discipline until he is found guilty of indiscipline in and enquiry which has been held in the manner provided by rules which conforms to the Rules of natural justice and fair play. ( 30 ) NO student can be crucified so as to be deprived of his legal right to pursue his studies in the name of discipline until he is found guilty of indiscipline in and enquiry which has been held in the manner provided by rules which conforms to the Rules of natural justice and fair play. ( 31 ) IT, however, does not also mean that if for some compelling reason created by the circumstances or by the student concerned himself the enquiry cannot be held in the manner required then if the enquiry for establishing the guilt is made in any other but reasonable manner showing fairness and impartiality, then the punishment awarded in such an enquiry held in the substituted manner too cannot be questioned for the reason that in holding the enquiry the statutory provisions or the settled rules of natural justice were not followed. ( 32 ) LEARNED counsel for the university has, however, placed reliance on some judgments of the Supreme Court as also of this Court to urge that punishment awarded to the petitioner should not be avoided only because that requisite material supporting the charges levelled on the petitioner was not made available to the petitioner with the show cause notice which was served on him and that the committee which considered petitioners explanation tendered by him in reply to that notice, did not give personal hearing and opportunity to cross-examine the invigilators on whose report the petitioner was charged and punished. ( 33 ) HOWEVER, before adverting to the case law cited by university counsel it is necessary to notice that it has not been argued by petitioners counsel that petitioner should have been given right of personal hearing, what was emphasised by him was that since the charge which was levelled on the petitioner was based on the communication sent to the Centre Superintendent by invigilators and by the Centre Superintendent to the university, therefore, it was necessary for the university to have supplied those reports to the petitioner so as to enable him to know as to what was the basis of the charge. In absence of those reports it was contended by petitioners learned counsel that petitioner was not in a position to effectively deny the charge except by making bare denial. In absence of those reports it was contended by petitioners learned counsel that petitioner was not in a position to effectively deny the charge except by making bare denial. ( 34 ) FIRST case cited is Guru Nanak Deo University v. Harjinder Singh, 1994 (4) JT SC 405 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2591 ). ( 35 ) IT was a case of mass copying of examinees at the examination centre. The Standing Committee on the basis of the report received by it from the members of the Flying Squad and the examiner who respectively reported that many students possessed incriminating material and on seeking the members of the Squad they started throwing away the same in between the lines of the desks, the situation was deplorable and there was complete chaos in the examination hall; this was confirmed by subject expert on examining the answer books and comparing the same with the incriminating material and he opined that the students in question had copied from the incriminating material. It was on this material that the committee which examined the cases of respondents of Supreme Court case was satisfied that they were guilty of use of unfair means. The apex Court in this background was of the view that mere non-recovery of the incriminating material from possession of those respondents was of no consequence. ( 36 ) DOES the view taken by the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Deo in the background of the facts of that case is of any assistance or guide in this case. Here apart from the report sent by the invigilators and the Centre Superintendent about the running away of the petitioner from the examination room with his written answer book there was no other material to prove the charge; the report too was not made in the manner provided by Ordinance 1. 13. 5 and provisions of ordinance No. 1. 13. 6 too were not complied. The guilt of petitioner was presumed only on a report so made against rules though in his written reply petitioner categorically denied the charge and asserted that he had in fact deposited his answer book with the invigilator. There was no supporting material before the committee to choose the version of the invigilators and reject that of the petitioner. The guilt of petitioner was presumed only on a report so made against rules though in his written reply petitioner categorically denied the charge and asserted that he had in fact deposited his answer book with the invigilator. There was no supporting material before the committee to choose the version of the invigilators and reject that of the petitioner. ( 37 ) IN my opinion, the judgment of the apex Court in Guru Nanak Deo has wrongly been cited out of context as it offers no help on the question involved in this case in the background of its peculiar facts. ( 38 ) THE next case cited by Shri Naqvi is Himanshu Kumar v. University of Allahabad, (1985 AWC 973 ). In this case Himanshu Singh, hereafter Shri Singh was caught possessed with unauthorised material by the Flying Squad in the examination room. The material found in his possession was regarding the syllabus of the question paper. The Chief Invigilator gave to the petitioner notice in the prescribed form immediately after he was so caught asking him to give his explanation of the illicit possession of the unauthorised material. He was given opportunity of seeking the unauthorised material and then to give his reply; in his reply though he denied the recovery of the unauthorised material but did not state that it was found from some place other than his answer book. The report of invigilator and of the head invigilator were both supplied to him before he was asked to give his reply. It was in this background that this Court (Division Bench) took the view that simply because Shri Singh was not given opportunity to cross-examine the invigilator, the head invigilator and the members of the Flying Squad it could not be said that there was denial of opportunity to Singh before he was punished by the university with cancellation of his examination. This case too, therefore, is of no help to the respondents contention inasmuch as in the present case copy of the reports which were sent by invigilators and the Centre Superintendent to the university which was the basis of the charge levelled on the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner nor he was even told the source of the information on which basis the charge was levelled on him. ( 39 ) THE next case cited is Sundaram Srivastava v. Allahabad University, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 949. In the case of Sundaram this Cout held that procedures provided in Ordinance Nos. 1. 3 to 1. 5 of Allahabad University Ordinance were mandatory and since the procedure so prescribed in the Ordinances was strictly followed by the university before awarding punishment to Sundaram, therefore, the punishment so awarded cannot be challenged on the ground that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the invigilator, head invigilator and the members of the Flying Squad who had caught petitioner and made recovery of incriminating material from his possession. As a matter of fact petitioner was immediately served with show cause notice in the prescribed from and petitioner himself admitted its recovery from his possession. Since there was no allegation of bias against any of the persons who recovered unauthorised material from him the Court took the view that non-affording of opportunity of cross-examination of those persons to the petitioner did not render the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner illegal. ( 40 ) THE last case cited by Shri Naqvi is full bench decision of this Court in Triambak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, AIR 1973 Alld. 1 : (1973 All LJ 515 ). While examining the nature of power exercised in an enquiry which is conducted by a committee appointed for considering cases of use of unfair means in examinations conducted by Board of High School and Intermediate examination, U. P. Allahabad, hereafter the Board the full bench after noticing the law laid down by Supreme Court in board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Ghanshiam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 : (1962 All LJ 776) and serveral other decisions including English decisions held that the committee exercises quasi judicial power and while holding enquiry against students charged with use of unfair means has to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice. It has to evolve its own procedure which has to be dependent on the factual matrix of a particular case; the committee is not required to give personal hearing to the candidate concerned; the enquiry must be held in a fair manner by persons who are not biased; the committees report submitted to the Board for taking appropriate action against the candidate concerned is not required to be supplied inasmuch as the rule of second opportunity which is assured to Government servants by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is not applicable. ( 41 ) IN Tripathis case the facts were that on a report regarding mass copying having occurred at the centre where from Tripathi was appearing in High School Examination of 1971 the examiners were required to enquire as to whether the report of mass copying was correct. On comparison of copies of petitioner and other examinees who had appeared along with the petitioner in the said examination from the same centre the examiner came to the conclusion that petitioner along with others had used unfair means in answering question No. 2 of Science IInd paper. On further scrutiny by other examiners and head examiner it was also found that unfair means was used by petitioner and other examinees in answering question No. 1 of Science Ist Paper too. Their results were accordingly withheld and an on the spot enquiry was ordered to be conducted by a sub-committee of the Boards Examination Committee. Chargesheet was framed in which material including use of unfair means by Tripathi was mentioned. Chargesheet was served and Tripathi was called upon to show cause as to why action against him be not taken under Rule 2 (1) of Chapter VI of the Boards Calendar. The Sub-committee visited the institution and served the chargesheet on Tripathi, he was also shown the copies (answer books) of other candidates mention whereof had been made in the chargesheet. Tripath, then gave his explanation and signed it whereafter the sub-committee submitted its report to the examination committee, the examination committee held Tripathi guilty of use of unfair means. In the writ petition which he filed he raised the point that since report of the sub-committee had not been supplied to him, therefore, the action taken by the Board holding him guilty of use of unfair means was illegal. In the writ petition which he filed he raised the point that since report of the sub-committee had not been supplied to him, therefore, the action taken by the Board holding him guilty of use of unfair means was illegal. The Full Bench in, this factual background held that, sub-committees report was not necessary to be supplied to Tripathi as rules of natural justice do not envisage second opportunity which was then guaranteed to a Government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution. ( 42 ) TRIPATHIs case too has been cited out of context. As already seen in the present case no material at all was supplied to the petitioner and as a matter of fact no enquiry was conducted in respect of the charge which was levelled against him. Even the report on which the charge was based was not made in the manner it is required by Rules to be made nor the same was made available to the petitioner. He was kept in complete darkness about the material which formed the basis of the charge he was required to explain. ( 43 ) SUCH an enquiry is neither contemplated by University Ordinances nor by the principles of natural justice which is a mandatory law engrained in Art. 14 of the Constitution ensuring fair enquiry against a person charged of misconduct. ( 44 ) MERELY asking petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him because he took away with him his written answer book from examination room on 28. 7. 1995 without anything else so as to provide the petitioner opportunity to know the clue of the information on which the charge was based does not at all amount to providing opportunity of giving explanation against the charge of misconduct levelled. Such a show cause notice or chargesheet does not answer the mandatory requirements of the principles of natural justice. 1995 without anything else so as to provide the petitioner opportunity to know the clue of the information on which the charge was based does not at all amount to providing opportunity of giving explanation against the charge of misconduct levelled. Such a show cause notice or chargesheet does not answer the mandatory requirements of the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice, which has an over riding effect as against subordinate legislation, requires that the person charged of misconduct must be supplied with the chargesheet along with the entire material constituting the charge of misconduct or in case it is not possible to supply it with chargesheet he must be shown that material by the committee or the sub-committee as the case may be, which is entrusted with job of holding enquiry, before he is required to give his explanation, an enquiry held without supplying the material on which the charge is based will not be a fair enquiry answering the mandatory requirement of the principles of natural justice, such an enquiry will be a farce exercise which will vitiate the resultant order of punishment awarded to the delinquent person. ( 45 ) FOR the reasons already given above by me regarding Singhs case this Courts judgment in Sundarams case too which bears identity which Singhs case has no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, no reliance on this judgment too can be placed to validate the impugned punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner in a manner which is neither in accordance with the mandatory provisions of university Ordinances nor it is in keeping with the minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice. The punishment awarded to the petitioner in the result of an enquiry which was held in a most unfair and illegal manner wholly unknown to the rule of law as contemplated by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 46 ) IN my opinion, the manner in which petitioner was awarded the punishment under challenge is not conducive to the democratic society governed by rule of law but by draconian rules of despot. ( 46 ) IN my opinion, the manner in which petitioner was awarded the punishment under challenge is not conducive to the democratic society governed by rule of law but by draconian rules of despot. ( 47 ) FOR the reasons and the facts and circumstances already noticed in detail above, I do not agree with the respondents learned counsel that petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of hearing by them before the petitioner was subjected to the punishment of cancellation of his examination. Therefore, in view of the fact that punishment was awarded to the petitioner as a result of an enquiry which was held in the breach of the provisions of the Ordinance Nos. 1. 13. 5 and 1. 13. 6 and also in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and further that there was no material to support the allegations which were made against him I allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 12. 9. 95 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby petitioners 1995 examination of B. Com. (Hon.) part III was cancelled. ( 48 ) IN view of the fact that petitioners answer book of Elective a paper III has since been lost and is not available with respondents and further that by this Courts order dated 21-11-1995 petitioner was allowed to appear in the supplementary examination of that paper which was held on 21-11-95 and that he has already appeared in that paper it is also directed that the respondent-university shall declare petitioners result of B. Com. (Hon.) Part III on the basis of assessment of his marks which he may have secured in papers other than Elective a paper III in the main examination held between 19-7-95 and 16-8-1995 and in so far as the paper III of Elective a is concerned on the marks which may have been scored by the petitioner in the supplementary examination in which he appeared under this Courts order dated 21-11-1995. The writ petition is allowed with these directions. Petitioner will also get costs of the case from respondent university which is assessed at Rs. 2,500. 00. ( 49 ) JUDGMENT pronounced in open Court under Chapter VII Rule 1 (3) of the Rules of the Court, dt. 23-1-96. Petition allowed. .