JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - By this writ petition the Petitioner seeks to assail the validity of cancellation of his result in Part-l Master in Computer Application Examination. 1997 and debarring him from appearing the said examination prior to 1999 (vide letter No. 1209 dated 13.4-1998 Annexure-I)." 2. The case of the Petitioner is that after completing his graduation he took admission in Master in Computer Application (hereinafter referred to as M.C.A.) in the Post-Graduate Faculty of Berhampur University in September. 1996. The duration of the said course is three academic years. He duly appeared in the M.C.A. (Part-I) examination of 1997 which consisted of 8 papers. On 25-8-1997 while the Petitioner was taking the examination of 8th paper (Computer Oriented Numerical and Statistical Method) he was asked by the invigilator to produce his admit card. He duly produced the same. Thereafter he was asked by the invigilator as to if he had any incriminating materials with him. Although he replied in the negative the invigilator took his signature on a blank form. Later he was surprised to receive notice dated 24-2-1998 at Annexure.2 calling, upon him to show cause as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him for infringement of the examination rules. In obedience to the said notice, he submitted explanation dated 17.3-1998 at Annexure-4. By letter dated 17-3-1998 at Annexure-5 he was asked to appear before the Examination Committee on 24-3-1998. On the scheduled date he appeared before the Committee and explained that the allegation of use of any incriminating material levelled against him is baseless. The University authorities however without appreciating the facts and circumstances imposed the penalty as communicated to him in the impugned letter at Annexure-I. 3. 'The Berhampur University through its Vice-Chancellor is opposite party No. 1. The Controller of Examinations is opposite party No. 2. They filed their counter affidavit. Their case is that the Petitioner appeared at the Part-I examination of M.C.A. with Roll No. 7 M.C.A. at the University Post Graduate Department Centre, Bhanja vihar. On 25-8-1997 when examination of the 5th paper was in progress, the Petitioner was found copying by taking assistance of 'documents which he had brought into the.Examination Hall It was detected by the invigilator in the Examination Hall arid four sheets of handwritten documents were found from his possession. On 25-8-1997 when examination of the 5th paper was in progress, the Petitioner was found copying by taking assistance of 'documents which he had brought into the.Examination Hall It was detected by the invigilator in the Examination Hall arid four sheets of handwritten documents were found from his possession. They were seized and the matter was reported to the appropriate.authority of the University. The answer script and the seized incriminating materials were placed before the Board of Conducting Examiners who after going through the same was of the opinion that the materials which were seized from the Petitioner and were attached to the answer script were relevant and had been used by the concerned examinee. Accordingly, by notice dated 24-2., 1998 he was asked to show cause as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against hi m. The Petitioner was asked to appear before the,Examination Committee on 24-3-1998 which he did. The Examination Committee considered the matter and on being satisfied that the Petitioner was guilty of malpractice during the examination-recommended to award the penalty of cancellation of result and from debarring him from appearing at the said examination prior to 1999. The recommendation was placed before the Syndicate of the University which duly approved it. Thereafter penalty was communicated as per the impugned letter at Annexure-I. 4. Shri Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the notice dated 24-2-1998 (Annexure-2) submitted that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner is vulnerable as the notice itself was defective. According to him on 25-8-1997 the Petitioner's examination paper was Computer (Paper- V) and not M. Sc. (Electronics, 2nd Semester Part-I) as mentioned in the notice. The learned Counsel also submitted that in the notice' the Petitioner was alleged to be in possession of one old admit card,.two scales and three handkerchiefs which were not at all incriminating materials. 5. In, the counter affidavit, the opposite parties do not admit the contents of Annexure-2. They have stated that since the office copies of the show cause notices issued to the Petitioner and other delinquents are missing, they are not in a position to state regarding the genuineness of Annexure-2. 5. In, the counter affidavit, the opposite parties do not admit the contents of Annexure-2. They have stated that since the office copies of the show cause notices issued to the Petitioner and other delinquents are missing, they are not in a position to state regarding the genuineness of Annexure-2. They have pleaded, that the Petitioner himself admitted during the personal hearing before the Examination Committee that he appeared at the M.C.A. (Part-I) Examination, 1997 and on the relevant date (25-8-1997) the incriminating materials were seized from his possession and he had utilised the same in answering the questions. The allegation, of the Petitioner that he was asked to sign on,a blank form has been refuted. 6. In order to find out the real position, we called upon Shri Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the, University, to produce the answer script of the Petitioner as well as the incriminatjng materials said to have been seized from him on 25-8-1997. They were produced before us by the learned Counsel from which we find that in the report the invigilator has endorsed as follows: The case-was caught -by me inside the examination hall during examination hour. The case was caught while he, was copying from the incriminating materials. The Centre Superintendent has reported in the same manner by stating that the Petitioner was taught red-hande while copying. The incnminating material's consist of four sheets and are hand-written. The Petitioner`s has signed on each, of the sheets. The examiner has certified by stating that the materials are relevant and have been used by the candidate while answering question No. 7. There is absolutely no reason as to why the invigilator and the Centre Superintendent would falsely report against the Petitioner. On the basis of the afore said materials, we have therefore no hesitation to hold that the incriminating materials were seized from the Petitioner which he utilised in answering question No. 7". 7. The argument of Shri Mohanty basing on the show cause notice at Annexure-2 is of little consequence as the opposite parties have stated in the counter affidavit that the office copies of show cause notices issued to the Petitioner and other delinquents are missing. The noting in Annexure-2 consequently cannot be accepted as its face value. 8. 7. The argument of Shri Mohanty basing on the show cause notice at Annexure-2 is of little consequence as the opposite parties have stated in the counter affidavit that the office copies of show cause notices issued to the Petitioner and other delinquents are missing. The noting in Annexure-2 consequently cannot be accepted as its face value. 8. Statute 214 (5) (iv) of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 lays down that for use of unauthorised or incriminating material by a candidate in the examination penalty or cancellation of the result of the examination in question and debarring the candidate from appearing at the next examination may be imposed. That means the penalty of debarring an examinee from appearing in the next examination is not obligatory. 9. A Bench of this Court by order dated 29-6-1998 permitted the Petitioner to appear at the Part-I examination, 1998 but his result was directed not to be published without leave of the Court. The Petitioner pursuant to the said order appeared at the Part-l M.C.A. Examination in 1998. Although his paper has been evaluated because of the order of the Court his result has not yet been published. Subsequently by order dated 25-2-1999 the Petitioner took his final Part-III M.C.A. Examination which was held in March, 1999. It is stated by Shri Mishra that the result of the said examination is yet to be published as valuation of the papers is not yet over. Having regard to the totality of the background of the case while confirming the penalty of cancellation of the Petitioner's Part-I M.C.A. Examination, 1997, we are inclined to quash the further penalty of debarring him from appearing at the said examination prior to 1999.. We order accordingly. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. The opposite parties are directed to publish the result of examination of the Petitioner which he took pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 29-6-1998 and 26-2-1999. Pradipta Ray, J. 11. I agree. Writ petition partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed