JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ,—This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside an action of cancellation of registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. in the subject of Hindi by an order dated March 22, 2001\by the Himachal Pradesh University, respondent No.l herein, for quashing and setting aside the order dated March 16, 2001 rejecting the thesis submitted by the petitioner for Ph. D. registration in Hindi as also action of initiation of departmental proceedings against him. Other reliefs are also sought. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed his Matriculation examination in 1987 in second division by obtaining 59.9% marks from the Board of School Education, Dharamshala. He passed his +2 examination in 1989 with 50% marks. He cleared his B.A. in 1992 with 46% marks from respondent No. 1 University and M.A. in Hindi in 1994. The petitioner completed Ph.D. Programme/Ph.D. Course in 1995 and qualified for doing research work. On October 24, 1996, the petitioner got himself registered for Ph.D. Course from March 22, 1995. The research plan of the petitioner was approved by the respondent-University. On April 28, 1998, the petitioner submitted his thesis titled "Bhisham Sahni Ke Upanayas: Trasad Tatva". 3. According to the petitioner, a two member Committee addressed a letter to him in 1999 alleging therein that copying was noticed in the thesis submitted by the petitioner. He was, therefore, directed to appear before the Committee. On September 8, 1999, Dr. Rajinder Mishra, Head of Sanskrit Department of first respondent-University, called the petitioner for explanation regarding the thesis submitted by him. The petitioner was also intimated that he should inform his guide to come or to offer her explanation, if any, regarding the thesis. According to the petitioner, he explained his position in writing relating to the thesis submitted by him. It is stated in the petition that Dr. Rajinder Mishra was satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter did not hear anything for sufficiently long time. According to the petitioner, he explained his position in writing relating to the thesis submitted by him. It is stated in the petition that Dr. Rajinder Mishra was satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter did not hear anything for sufficiently long time. He was, therefore, hopeful that he would be awarded Ph.D. degree but to his utter shock and surprise, he received a letter dated March 16, 2001 intimating that while accepting the report of the Committee constituted pursuant to the Executive Councils earlier decision under Item No. 32 of its meeting dated February 17, 1999, the Executive Council vide Resolution No. 39 dated February 16, 2001 decided to look into the case of plagiarism, indulged in by the petitioner and it was decided as under: (i) Thesis be rejected; (ii) Registration for Ph.D. be cancelled. (iii) and disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner being an employee of the University. 4. It may be stated at this stage that the petitioner is also an employee with the respondent-University, and is working in the Department of Hindi. 5. On March 22, 2001, the petitioner received another letter, whereby his registration for Ph.D. in the subject of Hindi was cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court by filing the petition for appropriate reliefs. 6. Notice was issued, pursuant to which, the respondents appeared. Affidavit-in-reply is also filed by respondent No. 1. In the courier, it was stated that on the basis of a complaint made by one R.S. Verma to the Pro-Vice Chancellor, alleging plagiarism by the petitioner, an inquiry was ordered. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had copied materials from a thesis submitted earlier by another candidate for Ph.D. Degree. In order to verify the allegations made in the complaint, Dr. Krishan Kumar, Chairman, Department of Hindi of the respondent No. 1 University was asked to inquire into the matter and submit his report. Dr. Krishan Kumar submitted the report and concluded that the petitioner had copied the material from the thesis submitted by a Research Scholar Ms. Shakuntla Verma titled "Bhisham Sahni ke Sahitya Mein Samajik Rajnitik Chetna. The chairman observed that, prima facie, it was established that the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism and copied maximum material verbatim from the thesis of Ms. Shakuntla Verma. Shakuntla Verma titled "Bhisham Sahni ke Sahitya Mein Samajik Rajnitik Chetna. The chairman observed that, prima facie, it was established that the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism and copied maximum material verbatim from the thesis of Ms. Shakuntla Verma. The matter was, therefore, placed before the Vice Chancellor, who ordered it to be placed before the Executive Council (the highest decision making body) for appropriate decision. The Executive Council vide Resolution No. 32 in its meeting dated February 17, 1999 decided as under : "The Council constituted a committee consisting of the Dean of Languages Dr. Rajinder Mishra and Prof. Krishna Raina, Department of Hindi, to look into the matter. The Committee will be assisted by the Assistant Registrar (Secrecy)". 7. The Committee considered the matter and submitted the report to the authority. Since the report was submitted without hearing the petitioner and his Supervisor, the matter was remitted to the Dean of Languages requesting him to make a report after hearing the petitioner and his supervisor. 8. The petitioner submitted his written explanation. He appeared before Prof. Rajinder Mishra on September 16, 1999. Though Prof. Mishra changed his opinion, Dr. Krishna Raina stuck to her earlier report and the entire case was referred back with the joint report to the Executive Council and the Executive Council took a decision which is impugned in the present petition. 9. It was, submitted by the respondents that the University had taken the decision on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as his supervisor and no grievance can be made against such action. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 10. In affidavit-in-rejoinder, the averments made and allegations levelled by the University against the petitioner were controverted by the petitioner and he reiterated what he had stated in the petition. 11. We have heard Mr. C.B. Barowalia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Couitsel for the respondents. 12. Mr. Browalia raised several contentions. He submitted that the impugned action of the University is illegal and contrary to law. According to him, the case was not of plagiarism and the thesis submitted by the petitioner was his original work. At some places, no doubt, he had taken materials from other places in support of the thesis submitted by him but it was not a case of plagiarism from thesis of another student. According to him, the case was not of plagiarism and the thesis submitted by the petitioner was his original work. At some places, no doubt, he had taken materials from other places in support of the thesis submitted by him but it was not a case of plagiarism from thesis of another student. He also stated that due to inadvertence or mistake on the part of his typist, at some places, though the material was taken from other thesis, source thereof could not be disclosed in the foot note. There was, however, no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and it was a sheer mistake, default or negligence of the typist, for which the petitioner should not suffer. He also submitted that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the action deserves to be set aside on that ground as well. The Counsel urged that when one of the members of the Committee was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the same ought to have been accepted by the other member. In any case, the University ought not to have taken drastic action of rejecting the thesis of the petitioner and cancelling his registration. Finally, it was submitted that even if this Court is of the view that the action of the respondent-University in rejecting the thesis of the petitioner and cancelling his registration could not be described as arbitrary or contrary to law, no departmental proceedings could be ordered against the petitioner as it would amount to double jeopardy. 13. On all these grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed by issuing appropriate directions to the University. 14. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the action of the University. He submitted that the petitioner submitted his thesis to the University. Pursuant to a complaint made by R.S. Verma, an inquiry was ordered and a Committee of two members was ordered to be constituted. The Committee submitted the report against the petitioner. Since no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the report was submitted without hearing the petitioner and his supervisor, the matter was referred back to afford opportunity to him. The petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot make a complaint regarding non-observance of natural justice. Mr. Mittal also submitted that. The Committee submitted the report against the petitioner. Since no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the report was submitted without hearing the petitioner and his supervisor, the matter was referred back to afford opportunity to him. The petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot make a complaint regarding non-observance of natural justice. Mr. Mittal also submitted that. apart from the petitioner, even his supervisor was also asked to state if she wanted to say anything in the matter. She, however, stated nothing. Mr. Mittal further stated that only with a view to oblige and favour the petitioner, one of the members of the Committee namely, Prof. Rajinder Mishra, who had prepared a report and who had come to the conclusion that there was plagiarism by the petitioner, changed his opinion. But the other member, namely, Prof. Krishna Raina rightly stuck to her earlier view and no fault can be found against the action taken by the respondent-University against the petitioner. 15. Mr. Mittal also drew the attention of this Court to the written explanation offered by the petitioner himself dated September 16, 1999, wherein he stated that it was true that he had taken certain materials from other thesis. He also admitted that in the foot note, at some places, the source of material taken by him was not disclosed. According to him, however, it was the mistake of his typist and there was no plagiarism. He stated that he had written and completed the thesis against heavy family and domestic odds and had put in hard labour to complete it. His entire future career/prospects was on that thesis . Then he stated as under : Translation, which has been supplied to this Court by the respondent, reads as under : "If at all my respected teachers feel that I have committed a crime, then I would like to assure them that this has been done inadvertently. I beg to be forgiven for this. I, therefore, request that I may please be allowed to revise my thesis in the light of the observations made by Prof. K.K. & K.R. and then re-submit it in a revised and improved form” 16. Mr. Mittal submitted that there is no question of double jeopardy and the said doctrine would not apply to the facts of the present case. K.K. & K.R. and then re-submit it in a revised and improved form” 16. Mr. Mittal submitted that there is no question of double jeopardy and the said doctrine would not apply to the facts of the present case. As the petitioner is also an employee of the University disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him, which are independent of cancellation of registration or rejection of thesis. That action also, therefore, cannot be termed unlawful or illegal. He, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents. The petitioner submitted thesis "Bhisham Sahni ke Upannayas; Trasad Tatva". When a complaint was made to Pro Vice Chancellor of the University that the petitioner had resorted to plagiarism by taking materials from a thesis of another student (Ms. Shakuntla Verma), an inquiry was ordered and a two-member Committee was appointed, which submitted its report and it was found that substantial material was taken by the petitioner from the said thesis and the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism in preparation of thesis submitted by him. The Committee also quoted various pages from the thesis submitted by the petitioner and the material, which was found in the thesis of Ms. Shakuntla Sharma. In the joint report, both the Committee members observed that they had jointly gone through both the thesis comparatively and they were amazingly shocked to see that a candidate (petitioner) had copied "page to page without any alteration, addition or renovation." The Committee also observed : "It is a common practice in the University that the thesis are submitted for evaluation only after its thorough checking by the research guide. But the supervisor of this thesis seems to be reluctant in this regard. At least she could have saved the candidate from doing this offence." 18. According to the report, one of the Committee Members (Prof. Krishna Raina) expressed her doubts that the petitioner had stolen research material from another thesis titled "Hindi Upanyas me Bhartiya Tatva" (Year 1950 to 1970) submitted by Km. Renu Chandla under her supervision in 1986. Km. Chandla had also been awarded Ph.D. degree by the University. The Committee noted that from the thesis of Km. Chandla, sufficient material was taken by the petitioner and even the page numbers were also mentioned. Renu Chandla under her supervision in 1986. Km. Chandla had also been awarded Ph.D. degree by the University. The Committee noted that from the thesis of Km. Chandla, sufficient material was taken by the petitioner and even the page numbers were also mentioned. The Committee, therefore, concluded that the petitioner had stolen ample material from other thesis. The Committee, in the light of aforesaid facts, concluded : "Now, it is quite evident from the reports of Prof. Kumar Krishna and Prof. Krishna Raina, that Mr. Joginder Kumar has certainly stolen ample material from other thesis, mentioned above. Even then, it cannot be said that he has not copied any Hindi thesis. By doing so he has not only committed an unpardonable offence, rather he has disgraced the sublimity of the H.P. University, Shimla. But, we feel quite surprised and dejected also, when we think of the responsibility of the Supervisor of this thesis. It is a common practice in the University that the thesis are submitted for evaluation only after its thorough checking by the research guide. But the Supervisor of this thesis seems to be reluctant in the regard. At least she could have saved the candidate from doing this offence. In her report Prof. Dr. Krishna Raina has recommended strict steps to check this practice in the field of higher education. I hereby strongly support her view. We therefore, recommend that the registration of Sh. Joginder Kumar as the Research student of the H.P. University be cancelled along with his thesis under evaluation process." (Emphasis supplied) 19. An opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and as observed by us hereinabove, in the written explanation, he had "virtually" admitted that the material had been taken by him from other thesis. His case, however, was that the source could not be disclosed in the foot note because of fault, negligence and inaction on the part of his typist and there was no plagiarism. He also admitted that if he had committed some mistake, it had been done inadvertently and he might be pardoned. He also prayed for permitting him to revise his thesis in the light of the observations made by the Committee of two members. 20. It is really surprising that instead of taking appropriate decision on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner earlier, one of the members of the Committee, namely, Prof. He also prayed for permitting him to revise his thesis in the light of the observations made by the Committee of two members. 20. It is really surprising that instead of taking appropriate decision on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner earlier, one of the members of the Committee, namely, Prof. Rajinder Mishra, addressed a letter asking the petitioner to see him and to explain his position. In our opinion, the respondent-University rightly stated in the counter-affidavit that strangely Prof. Mishra did not join Dr. Krishna Raina with him on September 16, 1999 and made his recommendations. 21. In pursuance of the communication by Prof. Mishra, the petitioner, went to see Prof. Mishra on September 16, 1999 and submitted his written explanation. The member stated that he had sympathetically heard the petitioner and having gone through his written statement, the member felt that the petitioner should be allowed to resubmit his thesis. The clarification, in the opinion of the member, required to be accepted. He also stated that a man may commit some wrong in a casual way, oblivious of the gravity of consequences which may entail. He, therefore, observed that instead of cancelling the registration of the research scholar and treating his thesis invalid, it would be appropriate if a recommendation is made permitting the petitioner to revise his thesis after bringing the plagiarized material to his notice and by giving him an opportunity to resubmit the thesis. The member also stated that the supervisor had also contacted him on telephone and stated that she would not be able to come as she had to go out of station in connection with University assignment. She also stated that she could not go through the thesis thoroughly because of domestic circumstances. She, however, requested the member to take lenient view of the whole matter by keeping in mind future prospects of the petitioner. 22. As observed earlier, the other member stuck to the joint report submitted by the Committee and in our opinion, rightly 23. In our considered view, the submission made by Mr. She, however, requested the member to take lenient view of the whole matter by keeping in mind future prospects of the petitioner. 22. As observed earlier, the other member stuck to the joint report submitted by the Committee and in our opinion, rightly 23. In our considered view, the submission made by Mr. Mittal, the learned Counsel for the University deserves acceptance that when a joint report was prepared by two members, it was not fair or proper on the part of one of the members to afford hearing to the petitioner, to ask for his explanation or to call him without even intimating the other member. Even if it is assumed that the said action was bona fide, and had not been taken to favour the petitioner, it was not expected of a high ranking officer of the University, who was one of the members of the Committee constituted by the Executive Council, the highest body of the University. It is also relevant to note that the Supervisor of the petitioner never remained present. She stated to have conveyed one of the members of the Committee on telephone that because of domestic circumstances, she could not thoroughly examine the thesis submitted by the petitioner and also that lenient view might be taken in the matter. 24. What is most material and virtually clinching circumstance, in our view, is the written statement of the petitioner himself. He had admitted that material had been taken from another thesis. No doubt, he tried to save himself by throwing the fault on his typist but ultimately, it cannot be overlooked that the thesis was submitted by the petitioner. It was, therefore, his duty before submitting the thesis that everything which was done by his typist or any one else on his behalf, is properly scrutinised by him. In fact, looking to the report, it clearly appears that not only there was plagiarism from thesis of Ms. Shakuntla Verma but also from one Km. Renu Chandla. In our opinion, therefore, the action taken by the University cannot be described illegal or contrary to law and the grievance made by the petitioner is ill-founded and must be rejected. Finally, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding departmental proceedings against him. Shakuntla Verma but also from one Km. Renu Chandla. In our opinion, therefore, the action taken by the University cannot be described illegal or contrary to law and the grievance made by the petitioner is ill-founded and must be rejected. Finally, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding departmental proceedings against him. In our opinion, the said action of the University does not fall within the mischief of double jeopardy as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, to recall, is also an emplpyee of the University. As observed by the High Court of Madras in Dr. P. Ramamoorthi v. Madurai Kamaraj University, 2001 Lab IC 2043 (Mad), an act of plagiarism amounts to misconduct and dereliction of duty if plagiarized article was considered for promotion. Such act also lowers image of University Appropriate proceedings, hence, can be initiated against an employee if it is established that there was plagiarism. In the case on hand, the petitioner, an employee of the University, resorted to plagiarism. By such act, indeed, the image of the University and its employees is tarnished and lowered down in general public. They would feel that the employees of the University indulge in plagiarism for getting Ph.D. degrees by exploiting their position in the University as employees and having accessibility to the thesis submitted by others. Such act, in our opinion, would amount to misconduct and as the petitioner is an employee of the University, it is not only permissible but expected of the University to endeavour to maintain pure atmosphere and clean image of the University in larger public interest by taking appropriate departmental proceedings. The contention of Mr. Barowalia that no departmental proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner has no force and deserves to be rejected. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. ln the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.