Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent herein made in Memo.No.COE/C30/2005/3069-39, dated 18.11.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to declare the results of the petitioner in respect of all papers undertaken by the petitioner herein in April/May 2005. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he is a student of Valliammai Engineering College, Potheri, Chengalpattu District studying B.E. Degree Course. The course comprises of eight semesters and the petitioner has completed the course in March, 2005. On 31.8.2005, the petitioner had received a communication from the second respondent wherein, it was stated that the petitioner is directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 20.9.2005, since he is alleged to have been involved in the answer books scandal in the April/May 2005 semester examinations. The nature of malpractice was stated to be tampering and replacement of answer books. The petitioner had sent a telegram stating that he was not in a position to appear on that date and thereafter, a further communication was received by the petitioner on 29.9.2005 stating that since he had failed to appear before the enquiry committee on 20.9.2005, the committee had decided to give him a second and final chance to represent his case and therefore, he was directed to appear before the enquiry committee on 6.10.2005. The petitioner had appeared for the enquiry conducted on 6.10.2005. The enquiry committee consisted of three persons whose names and designations are not known to the petitioner. A microphone was fixed on the petitioner's shirt and the proceedings were videographed. From the questions posed to him, the petitioner was clear that the enquiry committee was enquiring about the alleged tampering only in respect of the Maths-III pa­per. In addition to the Maths-III paper the petitioner had also written the other subjects, viz., Electro Magnetic Fields, Electronic Circuits-II, Digital Signal Processing, Control Systems, Television Switching (6 SEM), Microwave Engineering, Total Quality Management and Switching and Networking. 3. The questions posed to the petitioner were mainly directed on finding out whether the paper relating to Maths-III was written by the petitioner or by someone else. On a perusal of the paper the petitioner had found that almost 28 to 29 pages were in his handwriting and the balance 4 to 5 pages were not in his hand writing. The questions posed to the petitioner were mainly directed on finding out whether the paper relating to Maths-III was written by the petitioner or by someone else. On a perusal of the paper the petitioner had found that almost 28 to 29 pages were in his handwriting and the balance 4 to 5 pages were not in his hand writing. According to the petitioner, it was apparent that somebody had tampered with the answer papers. The petitioner had also stated during the enquiry that he had sent an e-mail on the same day on knowing that his results had been withheld. Further, he had also stated that he had stayed in Chennai from the date of examination till the date of enquiry. 4. On the basis of the enquiry, an order was passed by the first respondent on 18.11.2005 which is as follows: "A case of malpractice (i.e.) replacement of original answer book involving certain students during April/May 2005 Examinations was reported to the University. Since there was some prima facie in the case, a complaint was lodged with the police as some outsiders are also involved in the scandal and the police have registered a case. Thiru Sunil Kumar Kallempudi with Reg.No.42201106111 a student of Valliammai Engineering College is alleged to have been involved in the malpractice. Consequent to the above, an enquiry committee was constituted by the University to enquire into the malpractice committed by the candidate. The committee enquired the said candidate and went through all the records, found that the candidate was involved in the malpractice and has submitted its report. The report of the enquiry committee was placed before the Syndicate at its 171st meeting held on 26.10.2005. The Syndicate has considered the matter in detail and resolved to cancel all the examinations (all papers, theory, and practical-current & arrears) taken by the candidate in April/May 2005 and further debarred from continuing his studies and writing all examinations for 2 (two) years. Accordingly, the above punishment is awarded to the candidate and he is eligible to appear for the University examinations only in November/December 2007.” 5. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Accordingly, the above punishment is awarded to the candidate and he is eligible to appear for the University examinations only in November/December 2007.” 5. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the enquiry was conducted in total violation of the principles of natural justice as no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and he was never made aware of the nature of the charges framed against him. No witness was examined, no evidence was let in to support the charge and the whole enquiry was conducted on a single day and a few questions were put to the petitioner without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner to state his side of the case. The petitioner has also stated that the impugned order does not show any reasons as to why the committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the malpractice. A copy of the report of the enquiry committee was not given to the petitioner and therefore, he did not have an opportunity to question the findings therein. However, according to the petitioner the punishment is totally disproportionate to the alleged charge and that this would cause undue hardship and would also attach a serious stigma on the petitioner's career. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that Anna University is the affiliated University for all the En­gineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and responsible for conducting the semester examinations in all the affiliated colleges lead­ing to the award of University Degrees. For administrative convenience affiliated colleges in a particular geographical area are grouped into zones and there are about ten such zones comprising of various affiliated colleges. It is the case of the first respondent that for the semester examinations, answer books are supplied by the University and each answer book for the University Examinations contains 44 pages and all the 44 pages of the answer book are mechanically stitched on the left hand side so that there is no necessity for stapling or tagging the answer sheets. The first page of the answer book is a printed form and of two parts and the top portion contains the answer book number, and blank space for College name, Semester, Branch, Date, Subject Code/Title, No.of pages used, Register No.of the Stu­dent, Chief-Superintendent's Signature, Hall Superintendent's Signature and for Dummy Number. The said top portion is separated from the bottom portion by a line of perfora­tion to enable easy tearing of the top portion after assigning dummy number before the an­swer book is sent for valuation. It is relevant that after every examination, all the answer scripts from a Zone are sent to the respective Zonal centres on the same day. 7. It is further stated that before the answer scripts are sent to the examiners for valuation, the answer scripts of each subjects collected from various colleges in the Zone are mixed. Thereafter, a dummy number is assigned to each answer book in both the top and bottom portion and a separate list containing the dummy number and respective register number of candidates will be prepared. After completing the above said process, the top portion of the first page of the answer script containing the register number, along with dummy number and other details as stated above will be torn off from the answer book to ensure that the identity of the student is not knowing any one. It is pertinent that the process of giving dummy number is done within a couple of days from the examination date and the answer book containing the bottom portion of the first and other pages alone are sent for evaluation. 8. It is further stated that while the, abovesaid process for the valuation of answer books of the April/May 2005 Semester Examinations were in progress, it was brought to the notice of the University through E-Mails and phone calls about the malpractice of replacement of answer scripts of the students of self-financing engineering colleges coming under Zone IV. Hence, the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University instructed the Controller of Examination to verify the allegations. Immediately the Controller of Examination alerted the Zonal Co-ordinator Zone-IV and he found out one answer script where the top portion of the first page was torn off and stapled with the answer script. Hence, the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University instructed the Controller of Examination to verify the allegations. Immediately the Controller of Examination alerted the Zonal Co-ordinator Zone-IV and he found out one answer script where the top portion of the first page was torn off and stapled with the answer script. Immediately, the Controller of Examination and the Deputy Registrar inspected the Zonal Centre and found 6 more answer books where the top portion of the first page was torn off and stapled with the answer script and the torn off top portion and remaining portion of the first page did not match and there was also variation in colour between the two portions which could have happened only on account of the fact that the original answer scripts written in the examination hall by the students were replaced with answer scripts written by Students outside the examination hall subsequent to the examinations in answer books stolen from the Zonal Centre. 9. It is further stated that on the same day i.e. on 5.5.2005 the abovesaid malpractice of replacement of original answer scripts was brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor and as per his instructions, the first respondent made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and the police had registered a case in Cr. No:327 of 2005. After, investigation, the police had arrested 3 daily wage staff working in the Zonal Office-IV a few students, on 8.5.2005. 10. It is also further, stated that as per the instructions of the Controller of Examination, the Zonal, Co-ordinator, Zone-IV, with the help of other teaching staffs, verified all the answer scripts in the Centre and found out 118 answer books involving 41 students in which the original answer books have been replaced and the same were handed over to the police officials. It is also stated that all the other Zonal Co-ordinators were instructed to check for the above said malpractice of replacement of original answer books and after a thorough verification, they reported that there was no malpractice of replacement of answer books in other Zones. 11. It is further stated that taking into consideration the gravity and uniqueness of the abovesaid malpractice and its adverse effect on the University's system of examination, the Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted an enquiry committee comprising of: (1) Dr. K. Jayaraman, Registrar, Anna University, as Chairman; and (2) Dr. 11. It is further stated that taking into consideration the gravity and uniqueness of the abovesaid malpractice and its adverse effect on the University's system of examination, the Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted an enquiry committee comprising of: (1) Dr. K. Jayaraman, Registrar, Anna University, as Chairman; and (2) Dr. Venugopal, Director, I.R.S.; and (3) Dr. M. Raajenthiran, Director (Academic Courses) as Members. 12. The committee had conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the students were involved in the malpractice of tampering and replacement of answer books. While giving his explanation during the enquiry, the petitioner was evasive to the specific questions posed to him and the enquiry lasted for about 30 minutes and after considering the petitioner's explanation, the enquiry committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was also involved in the malpractice of replacement of answer books. As per the directions of the Vice-Chancellor of the University the report of the enquiry committee was placed before the malpractice enquiry committee of the university to give its recommendation on the quantum of punishment. The malpractice committee, on 18.10.2005, recommended cancellations of all the examinations written by the delinquent students and to further debar them for a period of three years from attending classes and appearing in University-examinations. The said recommendation of the malpractice committee and the enquiry report was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate by its resolution No.171.6.11 dated 26.10.2005, accepted the recommendations of the malpractice committee and resolved to cancel all the examinations of the students involved in the said malpractice and further, debarred them from, continuing dies and writing all examinations for two years. The said punishment was commu­nicated to all the students involved in the abovesaid malpractice including the petitioner by a Memo No.COE/C30/2005/3069-39, dated 18.11.2005, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in T.C. Peter v. The Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi AIR 1978 Madras 87 wherein the learned Judges had quoted with approval the observations of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in T.C. Peter v. The Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi AIR 1978 Madras 87 wherein the learned Judges had quoted with approval the observations of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP. v. Bagleshwar AIR 1966 SC 875 which reads as follows: "In dealing with writ petitions against the orders of the Universities or Education Boards, cancelling the examination results of candidates who were declared to have been passed, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or the Boards set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by the Universities under Article 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and, though it is true that, if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals 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; but it would not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law." 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents laid emphasis on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. KS. Gandhi & Ors. 1991 (2) SCC 716 wherein it was held: "The students involved at the examination of secondary education are by and large minors but that by itself would not be a factor to hold that the students were unfairly treated at an inquiry conducted during the domestic inquiry. Assistance of an advocate to the delinquent at a domestic enquiry is not a part of the principles of natural justice. It depends on the nature of the inquiry and the peculiar circumstances and facts of a particular case. The regulations and the rules of enquiry specifically excluded the assistance of an advocate at the inquiry. Therefore, the omission to provide the assistance of a counsel at the inquiry is not violative of the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice in this case furnished wealth of material particulars on which the tampering was alleged to be founded and gave the opportunity to each student to submit the explanation and also to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, at the inquiry. The questions in the questionnaire given to the students were such that they could be answered by a mere look at the marks and no outside assistance was needed. It was also obvious from the records that the students held prior consultations with the counsel. Thus the procedure adopted at the inquiry is fair and just and it is not vitiated by any procedural irregularity nor is violative of the principles of natural justice. The absence of opportunity to the parents or guardians, in this background does not vitiate the legality or validity of the inquiry conducted or decision of the Committee." However, it is seen that in the above mentioned situation the students had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth their case. They were furnished with all necessary materials to effectively defend themselves and also to adduce evidence, oral and documentary, and the procedure adopted in the enquiry was found fair and just and not vitiated by any procedural irregularity nor was it in violation of the principles of natural justice. They were furnished with all necessary materials to effectively defend themselves and also to adduce evidence, oral and documentary, and the procedure adopted in the enquiry was found fair and just and not vitiated by any procedural irregularity nor was it in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, in the case in hand, it is found that the petitioner was only asked a series of questions and no witnesses were produced at the enquiry to support the case of the University. Thereby, the petitioner had no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. On a perusal of the records, it is found that there was no material evidence to connect the petitioner with the al­leged tampering of the examination paper. However, this Court is also of the view that no malpractice in the examinations, whatever be the nature or form in which it is employed, should be taken lightly and the guilty should not go unpunished, in order that excellence in education is maintained by the institution im­parting it. 15. Even though, it is an accepted principle that the Courts of law will not, normally, interfere with the decisions of educational institutions, it would do so in a case where it is found that there was some illegality or impropriety committed by the institution. In the present case, even though a serious charge of malpractice is alleged against the petitioner, it is seen that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by way of getting answers and no witness was examined nor any document placed before the enquiry committee, except the answer book of the petitioner in Maths-III paper, to prove the guilt alleged against the petitioner. Placing reliance only on the enquiry proceedings it cannot be said that the petitioner was instrumental in committing the malpractice alleged against him or that it was done on his behalf, especially, when the petitioner had denied the charges leveled against him. No doubt, malpractice in the examinations is a deplorable act which has to be seriously taken note of and dealt with severely. However, in this case, based on the enquiry, there was nothing to show or prove, beyond the realm of doubt that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the alleged malpractice. 16. No doubt, malpractice in the examinations is a deplorable act which has to be seriously taken note of and dealt with severely. However, in this case, based on the enquiry, there was nothing to show or prove, beyond the realm of doubt that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the alleged malpractice. 16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent ought to be directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, based on the charges framed against the petitioner, by giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, during the enquiry. Further, while giving such an opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent should conduct the enquiry and complete the same, expeditiously. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry committee, vide Memo No.COE/C30/2005/3069-39, dated 18.11.2005, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry as stated above. 17. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. No.925 of 2006 is closed. No costs.