JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 1. Sumit Nayyar has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P2) passed by respondent No. 3 disqualifying him for a period of two years from appearing in any examination of the University and the order dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure P8) passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting his appeal, and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to declare the result of the petitioner for the 6th, 7th and 8th Semesters of the B. Pharmacy. 2. After passing this Ist and 2nd years of Diploma in Pharmacy, the petitioner was given admission in the 3rd Semester (Second Year) of the Bachelor of Pharmacy (for short ‘B. Pharmacy’) in the Indo-Soviet Friendship College of Pharmacy, Moga (for short ‘the College’) affiliated to the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (for short ‘the University’). The petitioner passed 3rd, 4th and 5th Semesters. However, he was placed in the Compartment/Re-appear in the 6th Semester in one paper, i.e., Pharmaceutic - VII (Code No. 363). After appearing in the 7th Semester Examination of the University, which finished on 6th January, 2005, the petitioner appeared in the compartment paper of Pharmaceutic (Code No. 363) on 13.1.2005. While the petitioner was in the process of attempting the said paper in the Examination Hall, some candidates sitting at the back of the petitioner threw one slip of paper towards him which was lying near his desk. The petitioner became panicky and under utter confusion, he further threw that slip onwards. Neither the slip of paper belonged to nor written in the handwriting of the petitioner nor he had copied anything therefrom in his answer sheet. Even the contents of the slip were not known to the petitioner. The Invigilator at the Examination Centre, noticed the petitioner throwing the slip of paper. A case of use of Unfair Means was made out. After holding summary proceedings in the matter, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21.3.2005 that he had been disqualified for a period of two years (two semesters) from appearing in any examination of the University by the UMC Standing Committee under Regulation 11.1 of Chapter XVI. After holding summary proceedings in the matter, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21.3.2005 that he had been disqualified for a period of two years (two semesters) from appearing in any examination of the University by the UMC Standing Committee under Regulation 11.1 of Chapter XVI. It was further mentioned in the said letter as under :- “By calculating one year equal to one semester, the above said candidate can appear in examination in December 2005 only in the Semesters/Papers, which were offered in December 2004/January 2005. So, his result `Stands Cancelled” in all the examinations he appeared in December 2004/January 2005.” The petitioner filed appeal against the decision to disqualify him and to cancel his examinations he appeared in “December 2004/January 2005” before the Vice-Chancellor of the University. However, the appeal was rejected vide letter dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure P8). Now Sumit Nayyar has filed this petition where prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari as well as writ of mandamus has been made. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement to contest the writ petition. In reply to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondents is that “the petitioner was caught in possession of incriminating material while appearing in (compartment paper of the 6th Semester of B. Pharmacy Course, in the subject `Pharmaceutic - VII’, on 13.1.2005.” In reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the respondents have stated as under in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement :- “5. In reply to para 5 it is submitted that after considering the reply of the petitioner to the charge, he was found guilty for violating Regulation 10(h)(iii) which contemplates a situation where one candidate gives assistance to copy from the objectionable material in his/her possession. Admittedly, the petitioner did pass on the incriminating slip to the other candidate. He was caught while doing so. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that his slip was thrown at his desk by some other candidate. As submitted by the petitioner that he was earlier reluctant to pass on the slip, then if he was once reluctant to do so something which is wrong he should not have done some wrong thing subsequently. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that his slip was thrown at his desk by some other candidate. As submitted by the petitioner that he was earlier reluctant to pass on the slip, then if he was once reluctant to do so something which is wrong he should not have done some wrong thing subsequently. He should have stood up and informed the Invigilator that a slip had been thrown on his desk from somewhere and the same may be please taken away. As soon as he took the slip and gave it to the other candidate he became guilty of violating the Regulation 10(h)(iii). He was found guilty accordingly and he was disqualified from appearing in any examination of the University for two years under Regulation 11.1 of the `Regulations’....” 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the paper slip in question was neither in the handwriting of the petitioner nor he was found copying therefrom. Merely because the petitioner had thrown the slip onward without passing the same to any other candidate, the case under use of Unfair Means has been made out against him. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not assisting any candidate by supplying the paper slip to him. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Atul Nehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University. It has been contended by him that the petitioner has learn caught been while supplying objectionable material to some other candidate for copying purposes. Thus, he contends that he was guilty under Regulation 10(h)(iii) of Part-II of Chapter XVI of the University Calendar. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case file very carefully. The stand taken by the University is that the petitioner was guilty under Regulation 10(h)(iii) which contemplates a situation where one candidate gives assistance to copy from the objectionable material in his/her possession. Admittedly, in the present case the paper slip allegedly found being thrown by the petitioner was not in his handwriting nor he was found copying therefrom. Even the contents of the slip were not found to be tallying with the material found written in the answer sheet belonging to the petitioner. Admittedly, in the present case the paper slip allegedly found being thrown by the petitioner was not in his handwriting nor he was found copying therefrom. Even the contents of the slip were not found to be tallying with the material found written in the answer sheet belonging to the petitioner. Had the petitioner been keeping the incriminating material in the shape of a paper slip for use in the examination, then either the same ought to have been in his handwriting or he himself would have used the same while writing on his answer sheet. Merely for assisting someone else he would not have kept the paper slip with him and thereby making himself guilty under the Unfair Means Case. No candidate has been named by the University whom the petitioner had helped by supplying the incriminating material which was allegedly caught from his being thrown by him. In such a situation, the version given by the petitioner in the writ petition seems to be truthful, which is to the effect that the paper slip in question had been thrown by someone sitting at the back and in order to save himself from being caught by the Invigilator, the petitioner had thrown the paper slip onwards and not with the intention to assist any specific candidate, who was appearing in the examination at that time. Even the Principal of the College had written a letter dated 21.4.2005 (Annexure P7) to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, before whom the appeal of the petitioner against the decision of the UMC Committee was pending. For ready reference, the said letter is reproduced hereunder:- “The Honourable Vice-Chancellor, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. Ref.: PTU/Exam/1524-1527 dated 21.03.2005 Receipt No. 751 dated 18.4.2005 O/o V.C. Sub: Appeal against UMC Decision in respect of Sumit Nayyar Regd. No. 29125545. Sir, With reference to the above mentioned subject I shall like to state that Mr. Sumit Nayyar has never indulged in any act of indiscipline during his stay in the College. I have enquired from the Invigilator on duty that he was neither writing from the slip nor has written anything from the slip. On investigation of other students it was found that somebody threw slip at him from behind and the threw in front since it was lying near to his seat. ** ** ** ** ** **” 6. I have enquired from the Invigilator on duty that he was neither writing from the slip nor has written anything from the slip. On investigation of other students it was found that somebody threw slip at him from behind and the threw in front since it was lying near to his seat. ** ** ** ** ** **” 6. As already mentioned above, it is not the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner was found writing from the paper slip. Nor it is the case of the University that the paper slip was in the handwriting of the petitioner or he was found supplying the incriminating material to some specific candidate. In view of this situation, the inquiry made by the Principal with regard to the alleged guilt of the petitioner seems to be more plausible and it seems that the petitioner has wrongly been punished for no fault on his part. If the paper slip had been thrown on his desk by somebody from behind, it was but natural for the petitioner to have thrown the same somewhere else so that he was not caught under the Unfair Means Case without any fault on his part. In case he failed to hand over he slip to the Invigilator, it does not mean that he should be punished severally. 7. In the light of the above, I allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P2) whereby the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in any University Examination for two years and the result of the examinations he appeared in December 2004/January 2005 has been cancelled. The order dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure P8), whereby his appeal to the Vice-Chancellor has been declined, also stands quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for the examinations of 6th, 7th and 8th Semesters without any further delay. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.