S. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Suneel Rai, learned Advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri A. B. L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate in opposition thereof, who appeared on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition challenge is to the order dated 3. 8. 2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which petitioners examination of B. Com. IIIrd Year of the year 2001 was cancelled and petitioner was further debarred from appearing in the next examination of the year 2002. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner appeared in B. Com IIIrd year examination with the Roll No. 26045 and on 15. 3. 2001 on completion of the examination when time was over he was to deposit his answer sheet along with other students and at that time there was short conversation of petitioner with some other students on account of which Sri A. K. Srivastava, the Invigilator intervened and he became annoyed on the feeling of fault on the part of the petitioner and he created some problem in deposit of the answer sheet upon which petitioner was compelled to write on a plain sheet that he has committed a mistake and he be pardoned and it is thereafter answer sheet was accepted. Submission is that petitioner being innocent gave in writing about that excuse on a sheet of paper by way of apology. It is claimed that when the result was declared on 20. 7. 2001 and petitioners result was not there he approached the concerned authorities then it disclosed that on account of using unfair means his result has been detained. After meeting the authorities on several occasions a letter dated 3. 8. 2001 was served on the petitioner by which he was informed that his result of B. Com IIIrd year Examination has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination of the year 2002. Submission is that before passing the impugned order petitioner was not served with any notice and no explanation was called from him. It is further submitted that no enquiry was conducted and impugned action has been taken in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The averment about lack of opportunity has been made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the writ petition. It is further submitted that no enquiry was conducted and impugned action has been taken in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The averment about lack of opportunity has been made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the writ petition. The explanation in respect to endorsement on a sheet of paper, as noted above, has been given in paragraph 3 and 4 of the writ petition. Submission is that it is on account of annoyance of the invigilator, as detailed in the writ petition, petitioner has been made suffer and he has been punished without any opportunity in the matter. In support of the submission that action in violation of Principle of Natural Justice is to be quashed, reliance has been placed on the decision given by this court in case of Jayanti Prasad Dwivedi v. University of Allahabad and Ors. reported in (2000)3 U. P. L. B. E. C. , 2760. ( 4 ) IN response to the aforesaid Sri A. B. L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate submits that from the record it is clear that petitioner ran away with the answer sheet from the examination Hall and he returned after about 20 minutes upon which on making endorsement in writing the invigilator by preparing report in that respect accepted the answer sheet and informed about the aforesaid to the center Superintendent. Submission is that in view of the aforesaid it has been rightly stated in the counter affidavit filed by Sri V. K. Singh dated 28. 11. 2001 that issuance of any second show cause notice was not required. Submission is that on the facts it is clear case of using unfair means and causing disturbance in examination. Submission is that definition of unfair means includes taking away of answer sheet from the examination hall. It is on the aforesaid premises argument is that result of the petitioners examination has been rightly cancelled. It is further submitted that although in the counter affidavit it has not been stated that notice was given /served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order but the record as has been placed during course of the argument before this court indicates that a registered notice dated 23. 4. It is further submitted that although in the counter affidavit it has not been stated that notice was given /served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order but the record as has been placed during course of the argument before this court indicates that a registered notice dated 23. 4. 2001 was sent to the petitioner by which explanation was called and petitioner having not submitted any reply, respondents have rightly proceeded to examine the things and to pass appropriate orders and thus no exception can be taken to the impugned exercise. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival submissions the court has examined the pleadings before this court besides the record as has been placed by Sri Gaur, learned Senior Advocate during course of the argument. ( 6 ) THERE is clear averment in the writ petition as is contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 that before passing impugned order petitioner was not issued and served any show cause notice and thus the impugned exercise is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. So far aforesaid statement of fact is concerned neither in the counter affidavit nor in two supplementary counter affidavits filed from the side of the respondents either there is any denial or there is any specific statement that notice was sent to the petitioner and that was served either by acceptance of notice or by refusal or by any other mode from which it can be accepted that the service is sufficient. To the contrary in the first counter affidavit filed by Sri V. K. Singh on 28. 11. 2001 it has been stated in paragraph 7 that second show cause notice is not required. In none of the counter affidavit i. e. counter affidavit and two supplementary counter affidavit there is any averment of even sending of first notice what to say about its service. The record as has been placed by Sri gaur also indicates that a notice dated 23. 4. 2001 is in the record which is said to have been addressed to the petitioner on the address Village and Post Jhunsi, District Allahabad. From the record as has been placed before this court there is nothing to indicate that whether that notice was actually sent/served on the petitioner or not. 4. 2001 is in the record which is said to have been addressed to the petitioner on the address Village and Post Jhunsi, District Allahabad. From the record as has been placed before this court there is nothing to indicate that whether that notice was actually sent/served on the petitioner or not. Be as it may, in view of the specific averment in the writ petition in several paragraphs to which there is no denial on behalf of the respondent although three counter affidavits has been field and there being nothing in record also as placed before this court to establish service on the petitioner, the contention about lack of any notice and opportunity before passing impugned order is to be accepted. Thus, this court is of the view that before passing impugned order petitioner has not been given any show cause notice and opportunity. ( 7 ) YET there is another aspect of the matter. In view of endorsement made by the petitioner on a sheet of paper accepting his mistake, submission of counsel for respondent that this is not a case of any injustice to the petitioner and thus no interference is to be made is to be dealt with. ( 8 ) TO begin with to deal this aspect, this court can refer to the order dated 10. 4. 2003 passed in this petition by which the invigilator was directed to file his own affidavit explaining the correct procedure that in the event an examinee runs away from the examination hall with the answer sheet whether and why and how the answer sheet is to be accepted from the candidate and if so up to what time. Pursuant to the direction of this court an affidavit has been filed. On a perusal of entire details as has been given in the affidavit of Sri Srivastava this court do not find any reason to accept answer sheet after the same was taken away by the candidate from the examination hall and then on his return it was tried to be deposited after quite some time. The explanation which appears to be there is that as petitioner on a sheet of paper has written about his mistake and therefore, it was accepted and information was so given to the Center Superintendent. The explanation which appears to be there is that as petitioner on a sheet of paper has written about his mistake and therefore, it was accepted and information was so given to the Center Superintendent. Here it is to be noticed that the endorsement of petitioner about his mistake is also not to the effect as being pleaded by respondents. If petitioner admitted his mistake of taking away of answer sheet out of Examination Hall this should have been got written in the endorsement of petitioner. Petitioner has never written on the sheet of paper that he took away answer sheet out of examination Hall and thus there remains something in between to be proved in view of explanation of petitioner that he wrote about his mistake as stated in writ petition on a sheet of paper and that was used by invigilator against him. Thus explanation givin by respondant to ampt the answer sheet appears to be shaky and not clinching and if it is treated to be correct then there appears to be something wrong on the part of the invigilator. Sri Gaur, learned Senior advocate is also not in a position to point out any Rule for acceptance of the answer sheet after some time if the candidate ran away with answer sheet from the examination Hall and then he comes back with the answer sheet for its deposit. This do not appeal to the common sense also that if the candidate has taken away the answer sheet from the examination hall and he comes back after some time why at all it is to be accepted. This court feels that it may not be permissible. If this is permitted then it may have a drastic effect. Take a case that certain questions are objective in nature then it will be very easy for a candidate to go away from examination Hall and get the problems solved and after getting reply correctly ticked come back after half an hour, and deposit the answer sheet. This may be totally unfair. Thus explanation given by the invigilator to accept the answer sheet after about 20 minutes on the admitted facts that it was taken away from the examination hall creates doubt on the bonafide of statement that on giving in writing about mistake, it was accepted. This may be totally unfair. Thus explanation given by the invigilator to accept the answer sheet after about 20 minutes on the admitted facts that it was taken away from the examination hall creates doubt on the bonafide of statement that on giving in writing about mistake, it was accepted. As stand of invigilator is clearly unusual and strange it gives more strength to the version of the petitioner that there was some dispute at the time of depositing of the answer sheet on account of which invigilator became annoyed and under threat petitioner innocently gave in writing that he committed some mistake and he be pardoned. The Invigilator appears to have made that endorsement as a tool to get the petitioner punished by writing a note in respect to the return of the answer sheet after 20 minutes. This court although may not go into this factual debate by getting lengthy enquiry but at the same time viewing the issue keeping in mind the normal conduct of either of the side it can be safely said that in the facts and circumstances of the present case stand of petitioner in making that endorsement upon which invigilator is said to have reported to the Center Superintendent do appeal. Otherwise acceptance of the answer sheet after 20 minutes on its taking way by the candidate from the examination hall do not make any sense and if it is so that shows irresponsible act on the part of the invigilator and in any view of the matter without affording any opportunity to file reply and to explain taking of impugned decision will have to be held to be illegal and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Thus although writ petition is to succeed on the first ground itself that impugned order is without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner on the analysis of the second aspect as highlighted by respondents as noticed above also petitioner is to get relief. The decision given by Davison Bench of this court in the case of jayanti Prasad Dwivedi (Supra) applies on all force to support the petitioner. In the decision of this court, referred above, Ordinance 1. The decision given by Davison Bench of this court in the case of jayanti Prasad Dwivedi (Supra) applies on all force to support the petitioner. In the decision of this court, referred above, Ordinance 1. 3 of the Ordinances on the use of unfair means and causing disturbances in examination (Chapter XXVII) of the Ordinances of Allahabad university has been dealt which clearly lays down that a candidate found using unfair means in the examination shall be served with notice in the examination Hall itself and if he refuses to accept/avoid or escape personal receipt of such notice, such notice shall be sent to him by registered post. Here is the case where neither serving of any show cause notice in the examination Hall has been stated nor there is any proof that on the complete address of the petitioner any notice was sent and if so, it was served. In three counter affidavits filed by the respondents, in none of them there is any averment about sending and service of any notice and information to the petitioner although in the writ petition in several paragraphs emphatic statement was made that no notice was ever sent and served on the petitioner. Thus on these facts this court is convinced that cancellation of petitioners examination by impugned order is clearly illegal and is in gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice and therefore, petitioner is entitled to get relief from this court. ( 9 ) IN the last as a matter of caution it is to be emphasized that future of a student rests on his intelligence and academic record. If for no justifiable reason a candidate is detained from appearing in the examination or his result is cancelled then it has a serious and far reaching effect on the career of that candidate. Sometimes we have experienced that it has resulted into serious frustration leading to very unpleasant events and therefore, before taking any adverse action in the student matter touching to his career all precautions should be invariably taken and action of the authority has to proceed on sound foundation and decision is to be based on positive materials and that too after due notice and opportunity to the concerned candidate. If the precaution is taken as a matter of rule that may avoid black-spot in the career of a student and irreparable and irreversible injury which he may receive by the impugned action. This court should not be misunderstood of having said that even if a candidate has been found using unfair means, by taking a lenient view he is to be exonerated, as that may lead to further indiscipline and it will add to the down fall in the standard and merit of the candidate but at the same time the approach should be that nobody is made to suffer for superfluous and flimsy ground/charges. ( 10 ) TO sum up, the result of foregoing discussion is that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the respondent No. 2 dated 3. 8. 2001 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to declare petitioners result of B. Com. IIIrd Year Examination of the year 2001 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. . .