JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner herein is a student of B.Com Part-I who had appeared for Part-I examination in the year 2002. In one of the papers i.e. Financial Management he was alleged to have indulged in cheating as he copied-out the answers from the solved key answers which was kept under the table and was seized by the flying squad deputed by the respondent- University. The Flying Squad which was deputed to check cases of cheating or mass-copying seized the key answers on 23.3.2002 which were found under the table of the petitioner and the matter was reported to the Invigilator and he has noted in the Supervisory Staffs report that the examinee bearing Roll No. 24284 which admittedly is petitioner's Roll Number was found copying two. pages of the key-answers of Financial Management paper from Page No. 43, 44, 67 and 68. This report has been signed by the Invigilator as evident from the Supervisory Staff's report on 23.3.2002 and in token thereof the candidate's/petitioner's signature also was taken on this. The candidate/petitioner, however, has refuted this allegation and denied his signature which is found against the candidate's column included in the Supervisory Staff's Report which was summoned by this Court and was perused by me. The petitioner as a consequence of his action was denied the right to continue with the examination and was debarred from taking examination for one year in the year 2002-2003 which has already expired. Thereafter, the petitioner is eligible to appear in the year 2003. 2. The counsel for the petitioner in view of petitioner's denial against the lnvigilator's report denying the allegation of cheating, has submitted that the petitioner could not have been imposed this stringent punishment without holding any enquiry to that effect. In fact when the matter was argued earlier, the University in its counter affidavit had merely justified its action debarring the petitioner from appearing in the examination for period of one year as it was submitted that the petitioner was found copying from two pages of a printed key note answers which he had placed under the table. This Court, however, in absence of any documentary evidence to that effect directed the University to produce positive material in support of its assertion. This Court, however, in absence of any documentary evidence to that effect directed the University to produce positive material in support of its assertion. In compliance thereof, the Supervisory Staffs report with the signature of the Invigilator was produced befpre this Court alongwith copy of the answer sheet and the printed pages from which the answers were copied out. Thus, the University has been able to satisfy the conscience of this Court that the action taken against the petitioner fulfils the requirement of natural justice which perhaps was the demand of the situation before a student is debarred. However, the petitioner's advocate is not prepared to accept this position as it is stated that a full fledged enquiry should have been conducted in this regard. It is no doubt true that if there were absolutely no material to sustain the plea of the University regarding the alleged cheating by the petitioner, this connection could have possibly found favour but if the University on the face of it has been able to prove its charge then referring the matter all over again to the University for holding a fresh enquiry would totally be a futile exercise in my view. Besides this, the question emerges on the surface from a situation of this nature as to why the Invigilator or the examination authorities who can have no malafide intention would level allegation of such a serious nature so as to implicate the examinee in a case of cheating. Therefore, some credibility will have to be attached to the authorities also if they have been left with the responsibility to hold the examination and therefore, this Court cannot go to the extent to disbelieving than at a very stage so as to send the matter for a fresh enquiry by the authorities. Such exercise perhaps would have been justified even the University had not come out with any material whatsoever in support of the allegation levelled against the examinee, but when sufficient material has been brought to the notice of the Court then in absence of any malafide or malice against the University, remitting the matter all over again for a de-novo enquiry in the matter is not warranted. The plea of the petitioner's advocate therefore, for a full fledged enquiry on par with a criminal trial in regard to the alleged action is not acceptable to this Court. The plea of the petitioner's advocate therefore, for a full fledged enquiry on par with a criminal trial in regard to the alleged action is not acceptable to this Court. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******