ORDER : The petitioner is assailing the decision of the respondent University cancelling the examination of Second year B.Tec. (Agricultural Engineering) of first semester. Petitioner has been further debarred for registration in the second semester i.e. for 2001-2002 as per order dated 18th, February, 2002 (Annexure P-1). 2. The petitioner is the student of B.Tec. (Agricultural Engineering) Course which is three years course. He appeared in first semester examination in the education session 2001-02. The first paper was held on 21st January, 2002. He further appeared for the second paper and also in other subsequent papers. While he was appearing in the subject of Agro Metrology, petitioner was questioned by the invigilator with respect to some material which could be used as unfair means while attempting the examination. Petitioner's answer-sheet was seized. Fresh answer paper was supplied and the petitioner was allowed to take part in the examination on the said date. Petitioner further alleged that he was not debarred from taking further examination as per Regulation 10, thus, the invigilator was satisfied with the petitioner and as a matter of fact that he had not used the notings on the scale in the subject of Agro Metrology. Petitioner submits that conduct of allowing to appear in the subsequent examination indicates that his act was not taken seriously and was not serious enough to debar him from registration in the second semester. All of sudden Annexure P-1 was received, passed without any show cause notice or hearing. Petitioner submitted representation which was also not taken into consideration and order was passed cancelling the examination of the first semester and further debarring for registration in second semester 2001-02. Petitioner submits that cancellation of the examination is having the civil consequences as well as debarment from admission in the next semester, which is under-going. Thus, petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order (Annexure P-1). 3. The respondents in their return contends that petitioner was using unfair-means during the first semester examination held on 25-1-2002. Answer-sheet of the petitioner was seized and endorsement was made by the three responsible persons with respect to user of unfair-means. It was mentioned that Kuldeep Rai was found using scale during examination at about 12.45 hours. 3. The respondents in their return contends that petitioner was using unfair-means during the first semester examination held on 25-1-2002. Answer-sheet of the petitioner was seized and endorsement was made by the three responsible persons with respect to user of unfair-means. It was mentioned that Kuldeep Rai was found using scale during examination at about 12.45 hours. Respondents further submit that in the examination hall on 25-1-2002, Officer-in-Charge, Academic, had asked for an explanation with respect to the writing on the back side of the scale. Petitioner had replied that the scale was recovered from me but he had not copied anything from that scale in the answer-sheet and further mentioned that his act may be condoned, he shall not repeat it in future. The Disciplinary Committee headed by Shri C. K. Tekchandani along with three members considered the matter and recommended punishment to be inflicted. The Dean, College of Agricultural Engineering, decided to punish the petitioner under Regulation 10.4 read with Regulation 10.5. Respondents submit that as the explanation of the petitioner was obtained in the examination hall itself, as mentioned in Annexure R-3, it was not required to give any further opportunity of hearing. 4. The Regulation 10 of the Academic Regulations provides for conduct of examination and prevention of unfair-means. Regulation 10.3 is relevant which is quoted below :- "10.3 a) when the invigilator notices a student indulging in any of the act of unfair means, he shall seize the paper or book or material, if any, from the student and shall invariably demand a written explanation or statement of the student concerned. (b) If the student refuses to give his statement, the candidate shall be asked to record in writing his refusal to give a statement. If he refuses to do even that the fact shall be noted, duly witnessed by atleast one member of the staff. (c) The invigilator shall however, write his remarks on the answer paper and affix his signature and the candidate shall not be allowed to take further examination in that course during that semester." Above quoted Regulation provides the method when the student is caught red-handed in the examination room. Invigilator has to issue a notice and obtain written explanation of the student concerned. Invigilator has to issue a notice and obtain written explanation of the student concerned. It is further provided in the Regulation 10.3.c. that invigilator shall write his remarks on the answer paper and affix his signature and the candidate shall not be allowed to take further examination in that course during that semester. Regulation 10.3.c. was not followed in this case. Invigilator has not made any remark on Annexure R-3. The petitioner was also not debarred from appearing in further examination in that course during that semester. 5. Regulation 10.4.b of the Academic Regulations was resorted in the instant case which provides that invigilator may admonish a student may ask to sit on other seat. The invigilator may take away material usable for unfair-means and may give him a fresh answer book to continue his examination, impounding the earlier answer book for submission as evidence to the Dean of the College. Regulation 10.4.a makes the person found attempting or using unfair-means liable for punishment. As per Regulation 10.5 Dean of the College shall be the final authority to award punishment for unfair-means. As per Regulation 10.4.c, examination can be cancelled of the student and he can be debarred for registration in next semester. In the instant case, petitioner has clearly pointed out that he did not use the writing of the back of the scale. 6. Since the petitioner was allowed to take the examination and subsequent papers also were allowed to be attempted by him, prima facie it appears that the respondents did not act under Regulation 10.3.c. Not only the entire semester was cancelled but the petitioner was also debarred from taking admission in the next semester, which is going on. It cannot be said that the explanation obtained in the examination room was enough. If that is the only material on the basis of which the respondents had acted, the petitioner clearly indicated that he did not use any material and there is anything to suggest that as a matter of fact, petitioner had copied anything from the scale. Thus, it cannot be said that no fresh notice was required to be issued by the Disciplinary Committee to the petitioner which considered the matter and made the recommendation to final authority for punishment. Petitioner should have been heard by issuance of a show cause notice. Thus, it cannot be said that no fresh notice was required to be issued by the Disciplinary Committee to the petitioner which considered the matter and made the recommendation to final authority for punishment. Petitioner should have been heard by issuance of a show cause notice. Since the action taken is punitive and he has been debarred for registration from next semester, explanation should have been obtained and reasoned order should have been passed considering his explanation. 7. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 . Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that the Committee considering the cases of unfair-means is required to act quasi-judicially. Principle of audi alteram partem applies. Decision has to be taken in an objective manner. Their Lordships held in para 11 of the report in AIR that opportunity of hearing has to be provided. Para 11 is quoted below :- "11. We thus see that the Committee can only carry out its duties under R. 1(1) by judging the materials, placed before it. It is true that there is no lis in the present case, in the sense that there are not two contesting parties before the Committee and the matter rests between the Committee and the examinee; at the same time considering that materials will have to be placed before the Committee to enable it to decide whether action should be taken under Rule 1(1), it seems to us only fair that the examinee against whom the Committee is proceeding should also be heard. The effect of the decision of the Committee may in an extreme case blast the career of a young student for life and in any case will put a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage him in later life. The nature of misconduct which the Committee has to find under Rule 1(1) in some cases is of a serious nature, for example, impersonation, commission of fraud and perjury; and the Committee's decision in matters of such seriousness may even lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in courts. The nature of misconduct which the Committee has to find under Rule 1(1) in some cases is of a serious nature, for example, impersonation, commission of fraud and perjury; and the Committee's decision in matters of such seriousness may even lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in courts. Considering therefore the serious effects following the decision of the Committee and the serious nature of the misconduct which may be found in some cases under Rule1(1), it seems to us that the Committee must be held to act judicially in circumstances as these. Though therefore there is nothing express one way or the other in the Act or the Regulations casting a duty on the Committee to act judicially, the manner of the disposal, based as it must be on materials placed before it, and the serious effects of the decision of the Committee on the examinee concerned, must lead to the conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judicially in this matter particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees, before it can take any action in the exercise of its power under R. 1(1). We are therefore of opinion that the Committee when it exercises its powers under R. 1(1) is acting quasi judicially and the principles of natural justice which require that the other party, (namely, the examinee in this case) must be heard, will apply to the proceedings before the Committee. This view was taken by the Calcutta Court in Dipa Pal vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal. 594 and B. C. Das Gupta vs. Bijoyranjan Rakshit, AIR 1953 Cal. 212 in similar circumstances and is in our opinion correct." The nature of misconduct has to be determined by the Committee after hearing the concerned student and it is on the basis of that gravity of misconduct found after hearing the incumbent that the punishment has to be imposed commensurate to the gravity of charge found to be established. Nothing of that sort has been done in this case. 8. Nothing of that sort has been done in this case. 8. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad and another vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and another, AIR 1966 SC 875 , the Supreme Court has held that in the case of unfair-means the enquiries held by the domestic Tribunal in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice. In Surendra Kumar Patel vs. University of Jabalpur and another, 1969 J.L.J. 392, a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of grant of an opportunity in such circumstances of use of unfair-means in para 6, which is quoted below :- "6. The Executive Council of a University, though an administrative body, functions quasi-judicially when it is asked to consider the question of mal practice committed by a candidate at an examination held by the University. All the English authorities on the subject right from Dr. Bentley's case (1923) 92 ER 818 to the decision of the Privy Council in University of Ceylon vs. Fernando, (1960)I All ER 631 necessarily imply that where misconduct is alleged against a student, there must be an enquiry and the student must get an opportunity to have his say and establish his innocence. A review of the Indian decisions would, however, show that there was a divergence of view among the various High Court on the question, namely, whether an order of expulsion or restriction by a head of an educational institution against an offending pupil is a quasi-judicial or an administrative act. That conflict has how been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in their recent decisions. The majority view of the different High Courts in India appears to be now based on the dicta of H. K. Bose, J., in Dipa Pal vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal. 594 and K. C. Das Gupta and Lahiri, JJ., in B. C. Das Gupta and another vs. Bijayranjan Rakshit and others, AIR 1953 Cal. The majority view of the different High Courts in India appears to be now based on the dicta of H. K. Bose, J., in Dipa Pal vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal. 594 and K. C. Das Gupta and Lahiri, JJ., in B. C. Das Gupta and another vs. Bijayranjan Rakshit and others, AIR 1953 Cal. 212 holding that it is a quasi-judicial function and this view must now be taken to the law governing the subject on account of the seal of imprimatur which these decisions have received from their Lordships of the Supreme Court in their decision in Board of High School and Intermediate Examination vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , stating that when an examinee has used unfair-means, or has committed fraud, or, is guilty of moral offence, or, indiscipline, the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent examinee should not be condemned unheard." The decision in Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Bagleshwar Prasad were followed. In para 12 it was laid-down by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sen, J., (as he then was), that no invariable rule/standard of reasonableness of an enquiry can be laid down. Rules of natural justice may vary with varying circumstances. The principle of natural justice cannot be fitten in a strate jacket formula. It was observed that full and fair opportunity of dispelling the suspicion has to be afforded to a student. Humane approach with sympathy and understanding has to be adopted because an unnecessarily harsh and rigid application of its disciplinary powers may sometime blast the entire future of an otherwise promising young man. Following observations were made in para 12 :- "We expect that the University will bear these observations in mind while dealing with such cases, and adopt a humane approach with sympathy and understanding because an unnecessarily harsh and rigid application of its disciplinary powers may sometime blast the entire future of an otherwise promising young man. The University authorities must, therefore, also take all these factors into consideration, including any mitigating circumstances present, while inflecting a punishment." 9. In Prem Prakash Kaluniya vs. Punjab University, AIR 1972 SC 1408 it was held by the Apex Court that student must be adequately informed. Full opportunity has to be given before making the case against him. The University authorities must, therefore, also take all these factors into consideration, including any mitigating circumstances present, while inflecting a punishment." 9. In Prem Prakash Kaluniya vs. Punjab University, AIR 1972 SC 1408 it was held by the Apex Court that student must be adequately informed. Full opportunity has to be given before making the case against him. Examinee can ask for more information or details with regard to material or evidence sought to be used against him. In Kumari Sandhya Sharma vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, AIR 1983 Allahabad Page 44 it was held that mere suspicion is not enough to punish a student. A Division Bench of this Court in Ku. Rashmi Bala Saxena and others vs. Jiwaji University, Gwalior and others, AIR 1989 M. P. 181 held that concept of personal hearing is limited to the case of individual in such matters and not in the case of mass copying. It is true that in the case of mass copying or mass mal practice, principles of natural justice are not applicable. 10. The order (Annexure P-1) is thus liable to be quashed with respect to the petitioner and is quashed. Petitioner shall be heard by the Disciplinary Committee and if it makes any recommendation, petitioner should be heard by the Final Authority before imposition of any punishment. Decision be taken afresh in the light of observations made above. Let the order be passed within 15 days from today. C. C. by tomorrow.