Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Petitioners are final year students of BC A (Bachelor in Computer application) in the S. A.S. S.N.D.P. Yogam College, Konny. This is a course of three year duration consisting of six semesters. Petitioners have completed six semesters and have also appeared for viva voice. In March, 1998, petitioners had appeared for the IVth semester examination. Result of the IVth semester examination of the petitioners and 12 others were withheld. The allegation, it appears, is that there was malpractice of copying in the paper 'Programming in C'. Petitioners were not informed why the results were withheld. Petitioners will not be declared to have passed BCA examination unless results of IVth semester examination is published. According to the petitioners, there is no malpractice. The supervisors in the examination hall did not notice any malpractice. Out of the 18 students whose marks were withheld, it is stated that results of 12 students were published later. But, the petitioners were singled out. According to the petitioners, no enquiry was conducted and their results were withheld without any enquiry and without any reason. Therefore, the Original Petition is filed to dispose of Ext. P1 representation and also to publish the results of IVth semester examination of the BCA course. 2. The University filed a detailed statement and also produced the concerned file. It appears that the Examiners in the Centralised Valuation Camp reported that in the answer books of 18 students answers to certain questions in 'Programming in C were similar and, therefore, they have requested the University to take appropriate action. It is stated that the Syndicate at its meeting appointed Prof. Mohan Kurian and Smt. Bindu K. as enquiry officers to report on the suspected cases of malpractice and decided to cancel the results of the candidates who are found guilty. Petitioners' results were finally withheld based upon the report. It is also submitted that a notice dated 30.8.1999 which was signed on 16.9.1999 was issued to the petitioners stating that the Sub-committee of the Syndicate on Students Welfare and Discipline after due consideration proposed that the examination taken by the petitioners has to be cancelled and a show cause notice was also issued why proposed penalty shall not be imposed. 3. This Original Petition is filed on 20.8.1999. 3. This Original Petition is filed on 20.8.1999. The show cause notice were signed only on 16.9.1999 and admittedly, not received by the petitioners at the time of filing the Original Petition. In the statement dated 20.9.1999 also it is not staled that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, to any event. Petitioners were informed about the malpractice only for the first time after more than one and a half year of writing the examination as they wrote the examination a March, 1998, and show cause notice was signed on 16.9.1999. Files placed before me also shows that not even a single communication was given to the petition before the issuance of the present show cause notice, that too, after filing of the Writ Petition and the petitioners-students were kept in the dark till now. It is also fairly submitted by the learned standing Counsel that before issuance of the show cause notice no communications were issued to the petitioners. 4. Contention of the Standing Counsel is that in case of malpractice of copying, communication to the petitioners is not necessary and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the procedure adopted by the University. Files also show that on the report of the Examiners, the matter was got enquired through Prof. Mohan Kurian and Smt. Bindu K. They did not ask any question to the petitioners-students involved. Neither did they enquire with the supervisors in the examination hall nor to the Principal or teachers of the College from where they wrote the examination. They went through the answer papers and confirmed about the suspicion as answers to few questions were similar. Contention of the petitioners is that since they are studying in the same college, they took notes from the very same Lecturers and, therefore, there is some similarity in the answers and even similarity in the mistakes in answers especially in technical answers in modern type questions and there was no question of any malpractice. None of the Supervisors reported any malpractice also. At least, they could have been given a chance to explain the matter before a finding is entered against them. 5. The first question to be considered is what extent of the natural justice should be given in such circumstances. None of the Supervisors reported any malpractice also. At least, they could have been given a chance to explain the matter before a finding is entered against them. 5. The first question to be considered is what extent of the natural justice should be given in such circumstances. If action is taken without complying with the principles of natural justice, the proposed action can be set aside. It is not disputed that the action in cancelling the examination wrote by the petitioners will affect the future of the students and it will substantially affect their rights. Even before a Century, the courts in the civilized countries (Lord Mansfield in Moses v. Macferlan (1760 (2) Burr 1005) and Spackman v. Plumstead District Board (1885 (10) AC 229) adorned the principle that bodies entrusted with powers could not exercise it without first hearing the person who was going to suffer as a result of the orders passed by it. (See Lord Selborne's observation in Spackman's case is quoted by Privy Council in A-G v. Ryan (1980 AC 718) (See also Ridge v. Baldwin -1969 AC 40). It is fundamental to the fair procedure that both sides should be heard and 'audi alteram partem' principle is accepted by the courts in India also. (State of M.P. v. Chitaman, AIR 1961 SC 136 and D.C. Mill v. Commissioner of l.T.- AIR 1955 SC 65). Lord Diplock held in O'Reilly v. Mackman (1983 (2) AC 237) that the right of a man to be given fair opportunity of hearing after informing what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case is so fundamental to any civilized legal system and failure to observe the same should render the decision null and void. In Bently's case (See: Wade on Administrative Law, 7th Edition, Page 498) when University of Cambridge had deprived of a scholar of his degrees for misconduct, he was reinstated on a mandamus from the court of Kings's Bench on the ground that deprivation was unjustifiable and as he was not given a notice for making up his defence. But, the requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with etc. But, the requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with etc. When action is taken for malpractice in an examination, courts will be very reluctant to interfere unless there is total absence of principles of natural justice. It was held by the Supreme Court that disciplinary proceedings against the students and proceedings for cancelling the examination for malpractice in an examination are quasi-judicial proceedings and principles of natural justice should be observed. In this connection, I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Board of High School v. Ghanshyam (AIR 1962 SC 1110) and Board of High School v. Chitra (AIR 1970 SC 1939). It was held that examination of a candidate or the result thereof cannot be cancelled without informing him of the nature of the accusation made and giving a right to defend himself even if there is no statutory obligation to proceed quasi judicially. I also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Suresh v. University of Kerala (AIR 1969 SC 198 (202). 6. Here we are not considering a case of mass copying found out by the Supervisors and where malpractice was perfectly plain and transparent. It is true that a formal enquiry after issuing a charge sheet may not be necessary while taking action of this type. Courts also cannot apply the same strictness as applicable to criminal charges before a court of law or a domestic enquiry conducted in an industrial matter or in a service matter. A formal enquiry itself may not be necessary with aright of cross-examination or an oral hearing on facts of certain cases. But, there cannot be total absence of fair play before drastic action is decided to be taken causing great prejudice to six students. At least the students should have been informed about the proceedings that has been taken enabling them to give an explanation before a final decision is taken. But, there cannot be total absence of fair play before drastic action is decided to be taken causing great prejudice to six students. At least the students should have been informed about the proceedings that has been taken enabling them to give an explanation before a final decision is taken. In this case, after the report of the Examiners of the Centralised Valuation Camp, enquiry was conducted without the knowledge of the students, examination supervisors or the teachers and some of the students were exonerated and thereafter the enquiry report was placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students' Welfare and Discipline on 31.3.1999 where in it was decided to recommend cancellation of the examination of the students in question. The above decision was approved by the Syndicate of the University oh 25.6.1999. The report of enquiry officers also shows that answers to some questions (about four questions) are similar. They did not conduct the formal enquiry regarding malpractice but only perused the answer papers. They recommended as follows/. For Reg. Nos: 17057 and 17058, there is no significant evidence for malpractice. Case V -TV Semester BCA Exam. Paper Programming No significant evidence of malpractice tat Reg. Nos: 16502,503,505,506,508,509 (6 Nos.) Case VI - IV Semester BCA Exam. Paper Programming in 'C'. No significant evidence of malpractice for the register Nos: 16549 and 16546. For all the other cases, the committee feels that there is evidence for malpractice. Since cases of malpractice is a regular practice in the colleges, it is highly essential to send letters to the Principals of the colleges to take strict measures to enforce proper invigilation so as to avoid such cases in future". What is recommended is to send letters to the Principals of the colleges so that strict measures can be taken in future to have proper invigilation. No such letters were sent. No action was recommended against any of the students. 7. On the basis of the above mentioned enquiry report, instead of taking measure to prevent future incidents, the committee decided to recommend cancellation of the examination of these six students which was approved by the Syndicate. All along this process, students were not informed of it and they were kept in the dark. It is not disputed that the enquiry officers did not give them any chance. They also did not recommend any action against the students. All along this process, students were not informed of it and they were kept in the dark. It is not disputed that the enquiry officers did not give them any chance. They also did not recommend any action against the students. The Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Welfare and Discipline did not give the petitioners any opportunity before considering the enquiry report or before recommending punishment. The Syndicate al so did not give them any notice or a chance to explain their view before conforming the recommendations. The Syndicate confirmed the recommendation to cancel the examination. After the above final decision, on getting notice of Writ Petition, a show cause notice was issued in the following manner: "The Sub-committee of the Syndicate on Discipline and Student affairs, after due consideration proposes that - 1. The examination taken by the said... be cancelled The said.... is therefore called up on to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this communication why the punishment proposed be not imposed on him." After a final decision by the Syndicate, the supreme decision-making body of the University, no purpose will be served by issuing a notice by the Controller of Examinations asking to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. The Controller of Examinations which issued the notice has no power also to overrule the decision of the Syndicate. 8. As held by the Supreme Court in Board of High School v. Chitra (AIR 1970 SC 1939), the decision to cancel the examination cannot be taken without informing him or her the nature of the accusation made. In this connection, I also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rajesh Kumar and Ann v. Institute of Engineers (India) ((1997) 6 SCC 674). There, the Supreme Court go to show that before cancelling the examination for copying, there must be evidence of conspiracy to adopt unfair means in the examination or there is "material to show that there was copying of the answer books, descending from the answer book of one of the candidates, or directly from the book leading to the copying by others." In this case, even the enquiry officers not only avoided the students, they also did not enquire with the Supervisors in the examination or the teachers in the college. No evidence is seen in the files regarding commission of any malpractice by these students or by anybody except the fact that answers to three or four questions were similar. They did not recommend any action against those students but wanted action in future to prevent such alleged malpractice's. In any event, before finally deciding the matter at least the petitioners should have been put to notice even if a full-fledged enquiry is not required as contended. The opportunity of post-decisional hearing given by the Controller of Examinations after receipt of notice of the Writ Petition after final decision of the Syndicate is only an eye-wash. Controller has no power to overrule the decision of the Syndicate. No purpose will be served by such an opportunity of making a 'funeral speech'. The final decision of the Syndicate cancelling the examination without any notice to the petitioners whatsoever is against the principles of natural justice. (See the Bihar School Board v. Sinha (1970 (1) SCR 648) and Prem Prakash v. Punjab University (AIR 1972 SC 1408). No fair deal was given to the students punished. The Sub-Committee recommended punishment to the Syndicate on 31.3.1999 and Syndicate finally decided the matter on 25.6.1999. Even thereafter petitioners were not informed of the decision within a reasonable time. The University waited and no intimation to the students was given regarding the cancellation of the examination till Writ Petition was filed and notice was taken by the Standing Counsel of the University. Petitioners have completed Vlth semester examinations and also completed the viva voce. In the circumstances of the case including delay, nature of the report of enquiry officers and the way in which students were dealt with and total failure of observance of the principles of natural justice, I allow the Original Petition and set aside the proposed action in cancelling the examination in question and direct the University to publish the results of the IVth semester examination of the BCA course of the petitioners forthwith.