JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is by a student who has registered herself for award of Ph.D. i.e. Doctor of Philosophy, Degree of Nagpur University. By impugned communication dated 10/2/2004 she has been informed that Board of Examinations of University has on 20/12/2003 accepted the report of Disciplinary Action Committee and as a punishment rejected her thesis for Ph.D., debarred her for submitting thesis/treatise for higher degree for three years and decided to lodge a complaint about fabricated and forged document dated 22/8/2002 with police authorities. It is a contention of Respondents No. 1 to 4 that Petitioner has fabricated letter dated 22/08/2002 to show that examiner Dr. Shri Patwardhan has cleared her thesis for award of Ph.D. This action is being challenged as in breach of principles of natural justice and parties state that before earlier Bench on 6/11/2006 it was agreed that matter should be disposed of finally at admission stage and matter was accordingly listed for that purpose on 13/11/2006, 22/11/2006 and on 8/12/2006 but could not be taken up. Accordingly the parties have addressed court finally at the stage of admission itself. Said period of punishment of three years i.e. debarring her from submitting thesis/treatise for higher degree for three years has already expired. I have heard learned Senior Advocate M.G. Bhangde with Adv. Makarand Agnihotri for the Petitioner, Advocate B.G. Kulkarni for Respondents No. 1 to 4 & Advocate Sangram Sirpurkar for Respondent No.5. 2. To avoid repetition of facts, I find it proper to briefly mention the arguments of parties here itself. Petitioner states that there was no specific acts of unfair means & charge sheet or definite charges framed against her, statement of prosecution witnesses have not been recorded in her presence and procedure prescribed by Direction No.2 of Nagpur University in this respect has been violated. It is also her contention that finding of guilt is based only upon surmises and even circumstantial evidence falls short for that purpose. It is contended that procedure in Ph.D. section of University is confidential and Petitioner had no access to it. Malafieds are tried to be shown by making personal allegations against Respondent No.5, guide approved by Nagpur University for her Ph.D. thesis. It is argued that those complaints against Respondent No.5 have been ignored. It is contended that procedure in Ph.D. section of University is confidential and Petitioner had no access to it. Malafieds are tried to be shown by making personal allegations against Respondent No.5, guide approved by Nagpur University for her Ph.D. thesis. It is argued that those complaints against Respondent No.5 have been ignored. If thesis is rejected by one of the two examiners, it is referred to third examiner and if such third examiner gives clearance, Ph.D. degree is awarded. There is no procedure in law which requires University to verify from examiner as to what happened to thesis sent to him. It is argued by Adv. Bhangde that acquaintance between Respondent No. 5 and Shri Patwardhan - examiner is established on record and with reference to procedure, it is argued that its violation has been demonstrated. Prayer made by Petitioner is to restore position as on 20/5/2002 i.e. the stage at which she was to appear before Shri Patwardhan for viva-voce. Nagpur University has defended its action by pointing out that standards applicable even in departmental inquiries will not apply with that strictness in such disciplinary action against student. It is contended that Petitioner was all the while aware of charge against her and has been given due opportunity to meet it. Lastly it is contended that in any case there is no prejudice suffered by the Petitioner in the matter. It is stated that as both examiners have rejected thesis of Petitioner, she is not entitled to claim status quo ante i.e. as prevailing prior to 23/05/2002. Learned Counsel Shri Sirpurkar appearing for Respondent No 5 has invited attention to submissions filed on record by said respondent and argued that petition is filed malafide against said respondent and deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. All Counsel have relied upon various cases to which reference will be made a little later. 3. (A) Petitioner is working as Head of Department of Applied Chemistry with Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, since last about 14 years and she states that since 1995-96 she has been independently working on "Waste Polymer Management". She states that Respondent No. 5 before this court viz. Shri Dr. 3. (A) Petitioner is working as Head of Department of Applied Chemistry with Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, since last about 14 years and she states that since 1995-96 she has been independently working on "Waste Polymer Management". She states that Respondent No. 5 before this court viz. Shri Dr. G.K. Ghoshal, a Reader in Chemistry working with Laxmi Narayan Institute of Technology was aware of this fact and approached her with the proposal that she should work under him for Ph.D. She thereafter applied for registration to University for Ph.D. on the topic "Studies in co-processing of petroleum residues with other heavy materials for optimum yield and quality of Coker Product" showing Respondent No. 5 as guide for the research. She also continued to work on her initial project which is not connected with topic selected for the Ph.D. In March 2000 she invented fuel from waste plastic and out of respect for guide she informed this to Respondent No.5 first and thereafter made it public. On 29/1/2001 she and her husband applied for registering the patent in this respect and in March 2003 she also registered it with World Intellectual Property Organisation, Geneva. She was selected by Hon'ble President of India in Enterprise Panel for India Vision 2020 and was one out of two persons from State of Maharashtra. She was also invited by Hon'ble President to make presentation at Global Chief Executive Officers Summit "Vision 2020" held at Cochin on 25-26 September 2003. She alleges that her guide Respondent No. 5 started insisting that his name should be included as co-inventor & that she never took him seriously. On 23/8/2001 she submitted her thesis for Ph.D. On 16/2/2001 news flashed in local newspaper " The Hitavada" giving impression that she carried said work of inventing fuel under the guidance of Respondent No.5. On 18/2/2001 another News item appeared in same Newspaper according to which Vice Chancellor of Nagpur University again made similar incorrect statement and published its decision to felicitate Petitioner and her guide. She was accordingly felicitated with her guide on 9/3/2001 and she was referred to as Dr. Mrs. Zadgaonkar though she did not have any Ph.D. (Ph.D. degree) at that time. She was accordingly felicitated with her guide on 9/3/2001 and she was referred to as Dr. Mrs. Zadgaonkar though she did not have any Ph.D. (Ph.D. degree) at that time. After this, Respondent No.5 started pressing for adding his name as co-inventor and threatened that otherwise he would see that she would not get her Ph.D. Petitioner further states that in December 2000 she started independently working on her treatise for D.Sc. Her husband then tried to reason with Respondent No.5 but there was no effect and Respondent No. 5 informed him that all examiners who would be screening her thesis were his friends and he would see to it that her thesis was summarily rejected. Ultimately on 1/2/2002 her husband met Pro-Vice Chancellor of University and as a result of that meeting a written complaint was then lodged on 1/2/2002 about these threats with University. Petitioner states that in last week of April 2002 Respondent No.5 approached her and communicated that he managed examiners of his own choice to evaluate her thesis and one of them had already rejected it while the other examiner had kept his report ambiguous. He told her that if he was not included as co-inventor in "fuel from plastic invention", her thesis for award of Ph.D. degree would be rejected. Petitioner states that though she believed that such threats would not affect high standards of University, she suffered nervous breakdown. On 6/5/2002 another complaint was made to University about Respondent No.5 and thereafter there was no insistence from Respondent No.5. (B) She submitted application for award of D.Sc. on 11/6/2002 on her treatise "Conversion of Waste Plastic into Fuel". On 22/10/2002 respondent University published notification indicating award of Ph.D. to Petitioner and she was called upon to collect necessary application form for convocation and to deposit amount of Rs 100/- towards fees. The convocation was to be held on 17/1/2003. On 15/1/2003 at about 11 PM University informed her that there was prima facie material to suspect mal-practice in obtaining Ph. D. degree and matter had been referred for inquiry to Disciplinary Action Committee and notification issued on 22/10/2002 declaring award of said degree in her favour was stayed. Husband of Petitioner tried to make inquiries and also informed Respondent No. 2 about complaints against Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 2 assured that he would personally look into the matter. D. degree and matter had been referred for inquiry to Disciplinary Action Committee and notification issued on 22/10/2002 declaring award of said degree in her favour was stayed. Husband of Petitioner tried to make inquiries and also informed Respondent No. 2 about complaints against Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 2 assured that he would personally look into the matter. On 24/4/2003 Assistant Registrar (Revaluation) issued letter about suspected mal-practice in the matter of obtaining Ph.D. degree and through it she was informed about letter sent by one of the examiners at the end of December 2002, preliminary inquiry made by Respondent No. 2 and availability of prima facie material of mal-practice. Matter was therefore referred to Disciplinary Action Committee and Petitioner was called to appear before it on 28/4/2003 at about 3 PM for recording her say. Petitioner appeared before said committee and denied the charges of malpractice and pointed out that she was not informed about the details of malpractice and invited attention to earlier complaints made against Respondent No.5. On 13/5/2003 by another show cause notice she was for the first time informed that Shri S.R. Patwardhan had in April 2002 written letter pointing out necessity of revising her thesis and on 7/5/2002, University wrote back to said Shri Patwardhan stating out that if massive revision of thesis was necessary, there was no point in conducting viva-voce. The desire expressed by Shri Patwardhan to conduct the viva was never communicated to Petitioner. Show cause notice also mentioned that on 22/8/2002 University received communication allegedly from said Shri Patwardhan recommending award of Ph.D. degree to Petitioner and then another letter in December 2002 from him about not forwarding any such communication and asking University to probe into the matter. Petitioner states that procedure not sanctioned by law was followed only because said Shri Patwardhan was known to Respondent No.5. Petitioner was also informed that University had written to said Dr. Patwardhan to confirm his signature on letters including letter dated 22/8/2002. Her Advocate further states that though proceedings of Disciplinary Action Committee are supposed to be confidential, she learnt about details and developments therein through Newspapers and through Newspaper only she learnt that Shri Patwardhan would be appearing before Disciplinary Action Committee on 20/5/2003. Patwardhan to confirm his signature on letters including letter dated 22/8/2002. Her Advocate further states that though proceedings of Disciplinary Action Committee are supposed to be confidential, she learnt about details and developments therein through Newspapers and through Newspaper only she learnt that Shri Patwardhan would be appearing before Disciplinary Action Committee on 20/5/2003. On 14/5/2003 news item was published mentioning that Disciplinary Action Committee had investigated and was able to come to the conclusion about forgery in the letter dated 22/8/2002. Newspaper "Hitavada" also reported that author of forgery could not be detected and hence it was decided to lodge police complaint. (C) On 20/5/2003 Petitioner appeared before Disciplinary Action Committee, filed her reply and also pointed out her complaints against Respondent No. 5. She reached venue at 12.50 PM and was directed to wait outside and was called in the premises where inquiry was scheduled at 3.15 PM. Shri Patwardhan was present their with three committee members and she was introduced to him. She submitted her reply and then one member of committee Shri J.L. Aparajit made a query to Shri Patwardhan about possible leakage of ambiguous report sent by him from his side. Shri Patwardhan ruled out such possibility and no other question was put to him in presence of Petitioner. Petitioner states that she was not aware that Dr. Patwardhan was to appear before inquiry committee or his statement was to be recorded. She found that there was already a statement of Shri Patwardhan running into 1½ page and hence when she was asked to cross examine him, she got confused and could not put any questions. Her statement was then recorded by Committee. She was informed about report of handwriting expert in relation to alleged letter dated 22/8/2002 and also shown statement of Respondent No. 5 recorded behind her back. Copy of these statements recorded by Committee or copy of report of handwriting expert was not given to her and she was not given opportunity to put any questions to them. On 1/8/2003 Newspapers reported that Petitioner was found guilty and police complaint would be filed against her. On 12/2/2004, she received letter from Registrar, Controller of Exams informing her about the report of Disciplinary Action Committee and the punishment. After respondents filed their reply to her writ petition, Petitioner has also filed her counter affidavit or rejoinder reiterating her stand. 4. On 12/2/2004, she received letter from Registrar, Controller of Exams informing her about the report of Disciplinary Action Committee and the punishment. After respondents filed their reply to her writ petition, Petitioner has also filed her counter affidavit or rejoinder reiterating her stand. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a reply & stated that one of the examiners Dr. B.K. Bhaskarrao by his report dated 3/3/2002 recommended outright rejection of thesis submitted by Petitioner. Other examiners Dr. Shri Patwardhan recommended revision and resubmission of report with desire to conduct viva-voce on 20/5/2002. University on 7/5/2002 communicated to him that there was no need to conduct viva-voce if thesis required massive revision and on 23/5/2002, Shri Patwardhan communicated his reasons for conducting it. However on 22/8/2002 University received totally contradictory recommendation allegedly from Shri Patwardhan through courier post for its acceptance without revision for award of Ph.D. degree. In view this communication, as per provisions of clause 16 (iii) of Ordinance No. 50 thesis of Petitioner was given to third examiner Prof. Hamid Ali of Aligarh who collected it personally on 30/9/2002 from University and by his report dated 11/10/2002 recommended its acceptance. In view of these two communications of acceptance, University issued notification dated 22/10/2002 to confer Ph.D. degree upon Petitioner. But on 2/1/2003 University received letter dated 20/12/2002 from Shri Patwardhan who suspected an attempt to hush up the matter and of getting thesis cleared without his approval and he stated that thesis was very poor and its technical part needed explanation. He requested University to probe into the matter. As the convocation was to be held on 17/1/2003 matter was immediately taken up and Shri Patwardhan clarified that he did not forward any letter on 22/8/2002 and further stated that signature on alleged letter was different than on other letters. As letter dated 22/8/2002 was found to be fabricated, award of Ph.D. degree to Petitioner was suspended and matter was referred to Disciplinary Action Committee for inquiry. Said committee after full inquiry submitted its report on 7/7/2003 which was considered by Board of Examinations in its meeting on 20/12/2003 vide item No. 47 and it unanimously accepted said report. In view of this, impugned communication dated 10/2/2004 was issued by University to Petitioner and complaint was also lodged with police station. Said committee after full inquiry submitted its report on 7/7/2003 which was considered by Board of Examinations in its meeting on 20/12/2003 vide item No. 47 and it unanimously accepted said report. In view of this, impugned communication dated 10/2/2004 was issued by University to Petitioner and complaint was also lodged with police station. It is emphasised that inquiry conducted was summary inquiry which cannot be equated with departmental inquiry and hence allegations about violation of principles of natural justice are stated to be not only meritless but also misconceived. It is stated that procedure in summary inquiry consists of giving opportunity to candidate to appear before committee, to explain to her charge and to show documents/material against her; and thereafter to give her opportunity to submit statement/say in the matter. Show cause notices dated 24/4/2003 and 13/5/2003 are argued to contain specific allegation about fabrication of letter dated 22/8/2002 and giving of adequate notice & opportunity to Petitioner to present her case before Disciplinary Action Committee. It is stated that entire material available on record including statements recorded were shown to her and statement of witnesses were recorded in her presence and she was given opportunity to put questions to them. It is urged that the report of Disciplinary Action Committee is not perverse. It is contended that allegations made by Petitioner against her guide Respondent No. 5 are not substantiated and it is stated that statement of Respondent No. 5 was also recorded. Receipt of communication dated 22/8/2002 drastically changed the complexion of claim of Petitioner for award of Ph.D. degree and otherwise her thesis could not have been cleared. 5. Respondent No. 5 has also appeared and pointed out that he was not initially joined as party respondent to the writ petition. He has given his service details and performance details to submit that he is an academician known at national and international level. He denied that he ever approached Petitioner asking her to work under him for her Ph.D. degree and he has stated that it is Petitioner who approached him with her husband and made that request. He states that he agreed to guide her for Ph.D. degree on topic of "Studies in co-processing of petroleum residues with other heavy materials for optimum yield and quality of Coker Product". He states that he agreed to guide her for Ph.D. degree on topic of "Studies in co-processing of petroleum residues with other heavy materials for optimum yield and quality of Coker Product". He has denied knowledge about Petitioner's independently working on "West Polymer Management" but has stated that the topic of Ph.D. degree is related to it. He further stated that while working with her, he was successful in inventing fuel from waste plastic and the matter regarding it was presented by him, Petitioner and one Mr. P.M. Kanthale in December 2000 in Chemical Engineering Courses held at Kolkata. Petitioner and her husband themselves briefed the press and name of Respondent No. 5 appeared at the instance of Petitioner. He has stated that he has also signed on application for provisional patent made to Government of India. He has denied all other allegations and stated that all publicity was done by Petitioner or her husband. He has stated that he has no influence in University and his brother retired from University in 1982-83 and expired in 1994. He states that his son got married on 23/1/2003 and at that time he along with his wife visited the house of Petitioner for extending invitation. He denied any threatening and stated that the correspondence between University and examiner is very confidential and he had no knowledge about it. He stated that after his signature on thesis, he had only contact twice with Petitioner- once when Petitioner came to give sweets after award of Ph.D. was declared and secondly when he went to invite her for marriage of his son. He states that he learnt about everything only when he was called by Disciplinary Action Committee. He has stated that he never made any statement to any Newspaper and has never written letter to either University or to any examiner. 6. When these facts are examined in the light of arguments advanced, it is apparent that there are three independent grievances made by the Petitioner. If the letter dated 22/8/2002 is not written by Shri Patwardhan, it is apparent that the position as per his earlier letter dated 7/5/2002 is revived and said examiner had recommended revision of thesis submitted by Petitioner and her viva-voce examination on 20/5/2002 at Mumbai. It means, on that date he had neither rejected that thesis nor approved it. If the letter dated 22/8/2002 is not written by Shri Patwardhan, it is apparent that the position as per his earlier letter dated 7/5/2002 is revived and said examiner had recommended revision of thesis submitted by Petitioner and her viva-voce examination on 20/5/2002 at Mumbai. It means, on that date he had neither rejected that thesis nor approved it. The University therefore had only one rejection i.e. from Dr. Bhaskarrao at that time and as such, it also becomes clear that there was no reason to forward said thesis to third examiner Prof. Hamid Ali. Petitioner has before this Court during arguments accepted to appear before Shri Patwardhan to take viva-voce examination. However this course is possible only if it is held that Petitioner has not been proved to be instrumental in getting the communication dated 22/8/2002 forwarded to Nagpur University. If this contention of University about its fabrication by her or at her instance is accepted, there is no question of permitting her to revise her thesis or to undertake viva-voce. But then there has to be such allegation or charge against her in the matter. Therefore first question to be decided is whether Petitioner is instrumental in preparing communication dated 22/8/2002 and whether said finding of University is arrived at after conducting inquiry as per procedure prescribed by Direction No. 2 of 2001. Related question therefore is whether standard of proof required in such type of inquiry is dilute than one required in departmental inquiries. It is not in dispute that Direction No. 2 of 2001 issued under section 14(8) of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, is the relevant provision which deals with procedure to be followed by Disciplinary Action Committee. These directions are called as "Direction to inquire into and to take disciplinary action for malpractice(s) and lapse(s) on the part of candidate(s), members of the Subject Examination Committee, referee(s), teacher(s) or any other person(s) connected with the conduct of University Examinations". Relevant provision for present purposes is Clause No. 14 & 15 which read as under: - "14. These directions are called as "Direction to inquire into and to take disciplinary action for malpractice(s) and lapse(s) on the part of candidate(s), members of the Subject Examination Committee, referee(s), teacher(s) or any other person(s) connected with the conduct of University Examinations". Relevant provision for present purposes is Clause No. 14 & 15 which read as under: - "14. (a) The Controller of Examinations of the University or an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar nominated by him shall inform the student concerned, in writing of the act of unfair means alleged to have been committed by him/her and shall ask him/her to show cause as to why the charge (s) leveled against him/her should not be held as proved and the punishment stipulated in the show cause notice be not imposed. (b) The student be asked to appear before the Disciplinary Action Committee on a day, time and place fixed for the meeting, with written reply/explanation to the show cause notice served on him/her therein. The student himself/herself only shall present his/her case before the Committee. (c) The documents that are being taken into consideration or are to be relied upon for the purpose of proving charge(s) against the student shall be shown to him/her by the Inquiry Committee, if the student presents himself/herself before the Committee. The evidence, if any, shall be recorded in the presence of delinquent. (d) Reasonable opportunity, including oral hearing shall be given to the student in his/her defence before the Committee. The reply/explanation given by the student to the show cause notice shall be considered by the Committee before making final recommendations in the case. (e) The Committee shall follow the above procedure in the spirit of the principles of natural justice. (f) After serving a show cause notice, if the implicated student fails to appear before the Disciplinary Action Committee on the day, time and place fixed for the meeting, the student may be given one more opportunity to appear before the Committee in his/her defence. Even after providing two chances, if the student concerned fails to appear before the Committee, the Committee shall take decision in his/her case in his/her absentia, on the basis of available evidence/documents, which shall be binding on the student concerned. Even after providing two chances, if the student concerned fails to appear before the Committee, the Committee shall take decision in his/her case in his/her absentia, on the basis of available evidence/documents, which shall be binding on the student concerned. (g) The Committee shall submit its report to the Board along with its recommendations regarding punishment to be imposed or otherwise." Clause 15 deals with types of punishments which can be imposed by Board. Opening portion of said Clause is relevant and it reads as under: - "15. The Board after taking into consideration the report of the Disciplinary Action Committee, shall pass such orders as it deem fit, including granting the student benefit of doubt, issuing warnings or exonerating him/her from the charges and may impose any one or more of the following punishments on the student (s) found guilty of using unfair means:" Third & last question is about lodging of police complaint by University in the matter. Perusal of order of this Court dated 16/04/2004 in this case shows that police have already taken cognizance vide Crime No.166 of 2004 u/s. 420,466 & 471 I.P.C. & this Court had refused to interfere in criminal investigation. 7. AIR 1959 SC 1111 -Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen has been relied upon by learned Senior Adv. Shri Bhangde for Petitioner to state that statements of Shri Patwardhan and Respondent No. 5 ought to have been recorded in her presence and as that has not been done principles of natural justice stand violated. Relevant observations as contained in paragraph 4 & 5 read as under: - "4. The Tribunal gave two reasons for holding that the dismissal was unjustified; namely- (1) that proper procedure had not been followed, and (2) that legal evidence was wanting.------------------------ We may in this connection set out in detail what happened at the enquiry on March 12, as appears from the testimony of the manager and the documents produced by him before the Tribunal. They show that when the enquiry was held on March 12, certain persons, whose statements had been recorded by the manager in the absence of Das during the course of what may; be called investigation by the company were present. The first question that Das was asked on that day was whether he had anything to say in connection with the disappearance of two lorry wheels and tyres from the garage. The first question that Das was asked on that day was whether he had anything to say in connection with the disappearance of two lorry wheels and tyres from the garage. He replied that he had nothing to say, adding that he knew nothing about the theft. He was then told that the people who had given evidence against him were present and he should ask them what they had to say. He replied that he would put no questions to them. Then the witnesses present were asked whether the evidence they had given before the manager was correct or not ; and if that was not correct, they were at liberty to amend it. They all replied that the evidence they had given before the manager was correct. This was all that had happened at the enquiry on March 12 and thereafter the order of dismissal was passed by the manager. The manager's testimony shows that the witnesses who were present at the enquiry were not examined in the presence of Das. It also does not show that copies of the statements made by the witnesses were supplied to Das before he was asked to question them. Further his evidence does not show that the statements which had been recorded, were read over to Das at the enquiry before he was asked to question the witnesses. It is true that the statements which were recorded were produced on behalf of the company before the Tribunal; but the witnesses were not produced, so that they might be cross-examined even at that stage on behalf of Das. The question is whether in these circumstances it can be said that an enquiry as required by principles of natural justice was made in this case. 5. We may in this connection refer to Union of India v. T. R. Varma, 1958 SCR 499 : ((S) AIR 1957 SC 882 ). That was a case relating to the dismissal of a public servant and the question was whether the enquiry held under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar. That was a case relating to the dismissal of a public servant and the question was whether the enquiry held under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, speaking through Venkatarama Ayyar. J., observed as follows in that connection at p. 507 (of SCR): (at p. 885 of AIR): "Stating, it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a Party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them." From paragraph 11 (b) of the report of Disciplinary Action Committee it is apparent that statement of Respondent No. 5 has been recorded on 3/5/2003 behind the back of Petitioner. He was not made available for cross-examination. His statement has also not been made available to Petitioner but it was read out to her. Similarly from paragraph 11(c) it appears that entire statement of Shri Patwardhan was not recorded in her presence. Though the report mentions that it was so done, from her recorded statement as reproduced, she did not hear Shri Patwardhan mentioning about his signature on disputed letter and it appears that it is Committee which informed her that he was denying his signature upon it. It is also not recorded that statement of Shri Patwardhan was read over to her. Copy of her statement recorded by Disciplinary Action Committee annexed with petition also shows that Shri Patwardhan has not deposed in her presence and it appears that question about identity of person sending letter dated 22/8/2002 was put to her by Committee itself. It is not case of University that said statement is not correct and as such its general plea in reply affidavit in paragraph 4 (iv) to the contrary does not inspire confidence. It is to be noticed that provision of Clause 14 (1) (c) of Direction No.2 above requires Disciplinary Action Committee to record evidence in presence of Petitioner and this provision has been violated by the Committee. 8. It is to be noticed that provision of Clause 14 (1) (c) of Direction No.2 above requires Disciplinary Action Committee to record evidence in presence of Petitioner and this provision has been violated by the Committee. 8. Clause 14(1)(a) of Direction No. 2 requires University to intimate in writing acts i.e. unfair means used by Petitioner to her. Committee has to give her opportunity to defend against the charge or charges framed and also to show cause in relation to quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed. Thus it requires application of mind by Controller of Examinations to the acts constituting unfair means, formulation of specific charges on the basis of such acts and also application of mind as to the type of punishment. Here, ultimate conclusion reached by Disciplinary Action Committee and canvassed by Respondents No. 1 to 4 is that Petitioner has fabricated letter dated 22/8/2003. First communication in this respect to Petitioner is dated 24/4/2003 with subject "suspicion about malpractice in obtaining Ph.D. degree". It mentioned that Vice Chancellor received letter from one of the examiners in December 2002 and conducted preliminary inquiry and there was prima facie material for suspicion about mal practice. It does not mention name of Shri Patwardhan or his letter dated 22/8/2002. It only calls upon Petitioner to appear before Disciplinary Action Committee on 28/4/2003 for recording her statement. Petitioner submitted her statement in writing and pointed out that she was unable to gather subject matter and alleged charges against her. In her reply she has however pointed out her alleged harassment by Respondent No. 5 and complaints or representations made by her husband to University about it. Thus document dated 24/4/2003 does not meet requirements of Clause 14(1)(a) above. Second communication by University to present Petitioner is dated 13/5/2003 and it gives history beginning from communication sent by Shri Patwardhan in April 2002 onwards up to 28/4/2003. It mentions that Shri Patwardhan informed University in January 2003 that he had not sent any letter on 22/8/2002 and his signature on letter dated 22/8/2002 was different from his signatures on about 7 letters sent to University and that on 28/4/2003 Disciplinary Action Committee informed Petitioner these facts and requested to co-operate for finding out truth. It also mentions that Disciplinary Action Committee had requested Shri Patwardhan to confirm his signature on letters received from him and on letter dated 22/8/2002. It also mentions that Disciplinary Action Committee had requested Shri Patwardhan to confirm his signature on letters received from him and on letter dated 22/8/2002. Hence by this notice dated 13/5/2003, Petitioner was called upon to remain present on 20/5/2003 before Disciplinary Action Committee to record her say in the matter mentioned above. This communication again shows that till 20/5/2003 Disciplinary Action Committee or Respondents No. 1 to 4 were themselves not very certain about truth or otherwise of signature of Shri Patwardhan on said letter dated 22/8/2002. The contention of University that Petitioner was therefore aware of everything or of nature of charge against her is therefore unsustainable. Respondents were not in a position to definitely set out acts of unfair means and to level charges against her till Shri Patwardhan confirmed his signatures and this confirmation appears to have been obtained behind her back on 20/5/2003. Her reply filed before Committee on 20/5/2003 suggests that she was unaware about changes suggested by Shri Patwardhan in her thesis and she had expressed her readiness and willingness to accept suggestions and modifications of examiner. Observations about her oral statement recorded on 20/5/2003 are already made above and need not be repeated here again. This communication does not propose any punishment. It is obvious that communication dated 20/5/2003 again does not meet the requirements of said Clause of Direction No.2. From language of communication dated 13/5/2003 sent by Assistant Registrar (Revaluation) it is apparent that Committee was finding out basic facts constituting "unfair means" necessary for leveling charges and was not finding out guilt or otherwise of Petitioner. It is important to note that in both these documents there is no specific assertion that letter dated 22/8/2002 was got prepared and sent to University by or at the instance of Petitioner. What was result of preliminary inquiry conducted by Vice Chancellor after receipt of letter in December 2002 from Shri Patwardhan and why no acts of misconduct could be specified or no charges formulated on the basis of said inquiry remains question which has not been answered. It may be mentioned here that the report of Disciplinary Action Committee mentions telephonic talk between Vice Chancellor as also Controller of Examination on one hand and Shri Patwardhan. It may be mentioned here that the report of Disciplinary Action Committee mentions telephonic talk between Vice Chancellor as also Controller of Examination on one hand and Shri Patwardhan. It also mentions fax letter dated 15/1/2003 from him in which he appears to have stated that he did not send any letter on 22/8/2002 and he did not think that there was any dispatch in the name of University in the month of August. He also mentioned that signature on letter dated 22/8/2002 was different than on other letters. From this it is to be gathered that perhaps University forwarded him copy of letter dated 22/8/2002 and on the basis of said copy, he made this statement. However such plea and material about forwarded copy or his fax reply dated 15/1/2003 is definitely not found adequate by University to enable it to meet requirements under Clause 14(1)(a) of Direction No. 2. It is equally interesting to note that Shri Patwardhan has made a guarded statement about signature on letter dated 22/8/2002. He could have positively asserted that he never recommended or cleared thesis of Petitioner for acceptance and letter dated 22/8/2002 was definitely forged. This could have been more in consonance with his stand in his letter dated 20/12/2002. It is important to note that Petitioner from 1/2/2002 had been making some grudge against her guide Respondent No.5. She has repeated it on 6/5/2002. It was never inquired into and though Disciplinary Action Committee is claimed to have recorded statement of Respondent No.5 in the light of her grievances and though his statement has been used by Disciplinary Action Committee in inquiry against Petitioner, he was not made available for cross examination and his statement has not been recorded in her presence. What prompted Shri Patwardhan to forward letter to University in December 2002 and why or how he gathered that there were efforts to hush up the matter and to get thesis cleared without his approval is not clear. Though he confirmed absence of his signature on letter dated 22/8/2002 by coming to Nagpur why his statement was not recorded in presence of Petitioner is again the question. Though he confirmed absence of his signature on letter dated 22/8/2002 by coming to Nagpur why his statement was not recorded in presence of Petitioner is again the question. When purpose of his visit to Nagpur and appearance before Committee was confirmation of signature in dispute and Clause 14(1)(c) of Direction No. 2 obliged Committee to record his statement in presence of Petitioner, why this procedure was not followed is not apparent. Why he could not confirm absence of his signature on any letter recommending acceptance of thesis of Petitioner earlier is also a moot question. All these questions assume importance because respondents have not shown any reason for deviating from express requirement of Clause 14(1). Said Clause itself obliges Committee to follow prescribed procedure while following principles of natural justice & as its part. In the facts of present matter compliance therewith was imperative and if compliance was not possible, reasons therefor ought to have been recorded or placed for consideration of this Court. It is to be noticed that Petitioner has come up with specific case that on 20/5/2003 one member of Disciplinary Action Committee Shri Aparajit put question to Shri Patwardhan about possibility of leakage of information from his side and it is expressly pleaded that apart from this no other question was put to him before Petitioner. The Petitioner has pleaded that further information was given to her and statement of Shri Patwardhan recorded in her absence was also shown to her. There is no specific denial of this plea by University. Learned Counsel for University has urged that no prejudice was caused to Petitioner as necessary opportunity to put questions to Shri Patwardhan in cross examination was given to her. The argument is wholly misconceived. Moreover, at that time and at any time there was no charge upon her that she did procure communication dated 22/8/2002. Both communications relied upon by Respondents 1 to 4 did not inform her that enquiry was directed at finding her guilt or purpose of enquiry was to punish her. In fact no such question involving herself or suggesting her participation in the matter has even been put to her. 9. It is an admitted position that correspondence between examiners and University is confidential. It is tried to be demonstrated that first few lines of disputed letter dated 22/8/2002 are copied from earlier communication forwarded by Shri Patwardhan only. In fact no such question involving herself or suggesting her participation in the matter has even been put to her. 9. It is an admitted position that correspondence between examiners and University is confidential. It is tried to be demonstrated that first few lines of disputed letter dated 22/8/2002 are copied from earlier communication forwarded by Shri Patwardhan only. It was therefore essential for University to demonstrate that Petitioner had access to such confidential letters and she had opportunity to copy it. Entire report of Disciplinary Action Committee is silent about it and there is no such allegation against Petitioner anywhere. Paragraph 5(e) of said report however questions even working of said department of University. Members of Disciplinary Action Committee remarked that Ph.D. section did not take timely action as per clause 16(iv) on recommendation of Dr. Bhaskarrao or Shri Patwardhan but acted with efficiency (undue?) on letter dated 22/8/2002 which was received on 26/8/2002 by putting the note on 29/8/2002 and sought orders from Controller of Examinations as per clause 16(iii) of Ordinance No. 50. Controller by order on 30/8/2002 appointed Prof. Hamid Ali as third examiner and appointment letter was immediately dispatched. This was personally collected on 30/9/2002 by said third examiner who on 11/10/2002 recommended its acceptance. Again report only mentions these facts but no inference drawn by Committee against Petitioner on account of these facts is mentioned expressly in report anywhere. Report mentions that Committee recorded statements of 4 employees and officers of that department but again it is not mentioned that those statements are recorded in presence of Petitioner and she was given opportunity of cross examination. However Committee itself has recorded that it could not get satisfactory reply from said section as to why action was not taken on letter dated 23/5/2002 sent by Shri Patwardhan. Whether Shri Ali was in Nagpur for some other work, whether there is anything wrong in collecting papers personally from University, whether he has shown undue haste in the matter, are some of the questions which deserve answer before recording any conclusion based on these facts. It is to be noted that Shri Patwardhan had not recommended rejection of thesis submitted by Petitioner but given explanation as to why he wanted to conduct viva-voce. He also inquired about the submission of thesis after removing deficiencies. Hence there were no two rejections on record of Nagpur University. It is to be noted that Shri Patwardhan had not recommended rejection of thesis submitted by Petitioner but given explanation as to why he wanted to conduct viva-voce. He also inquired about the submission of thesis after removing deficiencies. Hence there were no two rejections on record of Nagpur University. Equally there was no occasion to forward thesis to third examiner in absence of disputed letter. In this background whether Committee doubted any role of Petitioner in alleged efficient working of Ph.D. section is again not clear and what inquiry it made to ascertain such role or what opportunity it gave to Petitioner in the matter is nowhere disclosed. Why such role, if any, of Petitioner was not disclosed as an act of unfair means in any communication addressed to her again assumes importance. None of notices by University to her even whisper about any such manipulation in Ph.D. section. If circumstantial evidence alone is to be considered, importance of this missing link can not be under estimated. But then there is one important aspect which becomes clear from perusal of clause 16 of Ordinance No. 50. As per clause 16 (iv) rejection of thesis is possible if both the examiners do not recommend its acceptance. As per clause 16 (ii) reference to third examiner is envisaged when one examiner recommends acceptance of thesis and other recommends its rejection. In that contingency decision of third examiner is stipulated to be final. Under sub-clause (iii), if third examiner recommends revision of thesis, student is given 12 months time for revision and resubmission. Copies of such revised thesis are required to be submitted to all three examiners and then decision of majority of examiners is to be accepted by University. Student is not permitted second opportunity for revising her thesis. The recommendations of one of examiners alone for thesis revision is not sufficient. Under sub clause (v) candidate can be asked to revise if both examiners recommend revision of thesis. Here it is to be noted that Dr. Bhaskarrao recommended rejection and while Dr. Patwardhan recommended revision and viva-voce. However it appears that he recommended revision on 7/5/2002 and wanted to conduct viva-voce on 20/5/2002 i.e. before revision of thesis. University also did not treat said recommendation as rejection and sent a letter to him. In reply he forwarded above-mentioned letter dated 23/5/2002. Bhaskarrao recommended rejection and while Dr. Patwardhan recommended revision and viva-voce. However it appears that he recommended revision on 7/5/2002 and wanted to conduct viva-voce on 20/5/2002 i.e. before revision of thesis. University also did not treat said recommendation as rejection and sent a letter to him. In reply he forwarded above-mentioned letter dated 23/5/2002. The events therefore really show that theory of action under sub clause (iv) has emerged only after complaint made by Shri Dr. Patwardhan. 10. This brings me to consider the purpose of show cause notice & whether it stands satisfied in the matter. As already stated above there is no specific assertion of any act of unfair means & no charges are levelled against Petitioner in the matter in spite of specific requirement thereof vide Clause 14(1)(a) of Direction No. 2. (2003) 11 SCC 689 is the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Union of India v. Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd cited by Adv. Bhangde. It considers provisions of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 & Section 11A of The Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to excise duty. Hon'ble Apex Court has noticed that for period 1/9/1995 to 31/1/1998 no show cause notice was issued till 16/3/1999 and High Court erred in holding that letter dated 26/7/1995 tantamounted to show cause notice or was in the nature of show cause notice. In paragraph 13, Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that law requires a show cause notice to be issued under specific provision of law and not merely as a correspondence or as part of some other order. Such notice must indicate amount demanded and call upon assessee to show his objection to such demand. Hon'ble Court noticed that there was no such amount demanded and objection invited thereto under the communication treated as show cause notice by High Court. Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon Metal Forgings v. Union of India reported at (2003) 2 SCC 36 = AIR 2003 S.C. 291 i.e. its earlier judgment on this point. Following observations therein are important: “12. It is an admitted fact that a show cause notice as required in law has not been issued by the revenue. Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon Metal Forgings v. Union of India reported at (2003) 2 SCC 36 = AIR 2003 S.C. 291 i.e. its earlier judgment on this point. Following observations therein are important: “12. It is an admitted fact that a show cause notice as required in law has not been issued by the revenue. The first contention of the revenue in this regard is that since the necessary information required to be given in the show cause notice was made available to the appellants in the form of various letters and orders, issuance of such demand notice in a specified manner is not required in law. We do think that we cannot accede to this argument of the learned counsel for the revenue. Herein we may also notice that the learned Technical Member of the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the various documents and orders which were sought to be treated as show cause notices by the appellate authority are inadequate to be treated as show cause notice contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules or Section 11-A of the Act. Even the Judicial Member in his order has taken almost a similar view by holding that letters either in the form of suggestion or advice or deemed notice issued prior to the finalisation of the classification cannot be taken note of as show cause notices for the recovery of demand, and we are in agreement with the said findings of the two Members of the tribunal. This is because of the fact that issuance of a show cause notice in a particular format is a mandatory requirement of law. The law requires the said notice to be issued under a specific provision of law and not as a correspondence or part of an order. The said notice must also indicate the amount demanded and call upon the assessee to show cause if he has any objection for such demand. The said notice also will have to be served on the assessee within the said period which is either 6 months or 5 years as the facts demand. Therefore, it will be futile to contend that each and every communication or order could be construed as a show cause notice. The said notice also will have to be served on the assessee within the said period which is either 6 months or 5 years as the facts demand. Therefore, it will be futile to contend that each and every communication or order could be construed as a show cause notice. For this reason the above argument of the revenue must fail." Though, the ruling is under the taxing law which needs to be interpreted strictly, action against present Petitioner is again having Civil consequences and Clause 14 has been enacted in Direction No. 2 to give her adequate opportunity to meet specific acts of unfair means and specific charges levelled against her. Clause 14(1)(e) of Directions requires Committee to implement procedure prescribed in Clause 14 as part of principles of natural justice. The contention of present Respondents No. 1 to 4 that Petitioner was aware of everything and no prejudice has been caused to her needs to be rejected because there is nothing on record to support it. Not only this but before Disciplinary Action Committee she has to defend herself against written acts of unfair means and charges levelled. Disciplinary Action Committee is not supposed to undertake any roving or general inquiry in the matter. B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana -A.I.R. 1972 SC 2472 is other judgment relied upon by learned Senior Advocate which states that if order affects employee financially, it must be passed after objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and after giving him full opportunity to make out his case. It considers requirements of valid show cause and also argument of employer that employee was aware of charge and relevant observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 are as under: - "8. The only ground on which the Government ------------------------------ unsatisfactory. It is to our mind essential for a "Show Cause notice" to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate the points on which the officer concerned is expected to give a reply. We have no manner of doubt that the "Show Cause notice" in the instant case did not give the appellant any real opportunity to defend himself against the complaint that his previous explanation of 18 December 1956 had been unsatisfactory. The appellant did not, therefore, get any chance at all to show that he did not deserve a censure upon his conduct. 9. The appellant did not, therefore, get any chance at all to show that he did not deserve a censure upon his conduct. 9. We were told that since the appellant was aware of the charge and also aware of the reply he had given to the charges made against him, it was enough for Government to tell him that his answer was unsatisfactory. It was argued that since the "Show Cause notice" really pointed this out and mentioned that the very lenient sentence of censure upon the appellant's conduct was going to be imposed, there was nothing further that Government could be expected to do in this case. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention made out on behalf of the State. It is manifestly clear that the "Show Cause notice" was too vague to permit the appellant to deal with it effectively and that consequently the order of censure passed on him is bad and liable to be struck down." Clause 14(1)(a) requires Respondents No. 1 to 4 to communicate to Petitioner in writing of the act of unfair means alleged to have been committed by her, frame specific charge against her & stipulate punishment proposed to be inflicted. It has to ask her to show cause as to why the charge (s) levelled against her should not be held as proved and the punishment stipulated in the show cause notice be not imposed. Thus ingredients of such show cause notice are apparent and communications forwarded by respondents to present Petitioner in this case do not satisfy the requirements of this Clause 14. The order of punishment passed in such situation also therefore needs to be struck down. 11. Learned Counsel Shri Kulkarni has contended that proof in present matter can not be of same standard and it has to be less rigorous than in departmental enquiries. He has relied upon AIR 1966 S.C. 875 - Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad. Following observations are pointed out by him:- “12. 11. Learned Counsel Shri Kulkarni has contended that proof in present matter can not be of same standard and it has to be less rigorous than in departmental enquiries. He has relied upon AIR 1966 S.C. 875 - Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad. Following observations are pointed out by him:- “12. In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No. 1 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 Universities under Art. 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 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, we think not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law. In the present case, no animus is suggested and no mala fides have been pleaded. The enquiry has been fair and the respondent has had an opportunity of making his defence. In the present case, no animus is suggested and no mala fides have been pleaded. The enquiry has been fair and the respondent has had an opportunity of making his defence. That being so, we think the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed against the respondent." These observations are made in following background:- “11. Before the High Court, a statement was filed showing the seating arrangement in Room No. 10 where the respondent was sitting for writing his answers. It appears that he was No. 3 in the 3rd row, whereas the other candidate with Roll No. 94733 was No. 4 in the second row. The High Court was very much impressed by the fact that the respondent could not have looked back and copied from the answer-book of the other candidate, and the High Court did not think that there was any evidence to show that the other candidate could have copied from the respondent's paper with his connivance. We have looked at the incorrect answers ourselves and we are not prepared to hold that the identical incorrect answers were given by the two candidates either by accident or by coincidence. Some of the incorrect answers, and, particularly, the manner in which they have been given, clearly suggest that they were the result of either one candidate copying from the other, or both candidates copying from a common source. The significance of this fact has been completely missed by the High Court. The question before the Enquiry Committee had to be decided by it in the light of the nature of the incorrect answers themselves, and that is what the Enquiry Committee has done. It would, we think, be inappropriate in such a case to require direct evidence to show that the respondent could have looked back and copied from the answer written by the other candidate who was sitting behind him. There was still the alternative possibility that the candidate sitting behind may have copied from the respondent with his connivance. It is also not unlikely that the two candidates may have talked to each other. The atmosphere prevailing in the Examination Hall does not rule out this possibility. There was still the alternative possibility that the candidate sitting behind may have copied from the respondent with his connivance. It is also not unlikely that the two candidates may have talked to each other. The atmosphere prevailing in the Examination Hall does not rule out this possibility. These are all matters which the Enquiry Committee had to consider, and the fact that the Enquiry Committee did not write an elaborate report, does not mean that it did not consider all the relevant facts before it came to the conclusion that the respondent had used unfair means." This judgment does not lend support to any such a proposition as canvassed by University. On the contrary, it clearly shows that there must be relevant evidence before such Inquiry Committee to meet the conclusions drawn by it. Similarly, by deviating from the requirement of rules i.e. Direction No. 2 it cannot be said that Committee has acted fairly. Clause 15 of Direction No.2 requires Board to give benefit of doubt to the student and not to the University. The inquiry committee has to act fairly, give adequate opportunity to the delinquent and has to follow principles of natural justice. Discussion above clearly shows that Disciplinary Action Committee in present matter has not acted fairly and has not given due opportunity to the Petitioner as required by Clause 14 of Direction No. 2. There is no evidence even circumstantial against the Petitioner before said committee to substantiate its recommendation or the action taken by University. If the University or Disciplinary Action Committee wanted to act fairly, requirements of Direction No. 2 should have been complied with and grievance made by Petitioner against respondent No.5 should have been shown to be misconceived. This grievance has not at all been considered either by University or by Committee. Clause 14(1) requires the reply/explanation given by the Petitioner to the show cause notice to be considered by the Committee before making final recommendations in the case. Similarly Clause 15 permits the Board to pass such orders as it thinks fit but after taking into consideration the report of the Disciplinary Action Committee. As already stated above, reply or explanation submitted by the Petitioner has not been considered by any authority i.e. either by Disciplinary Action Committee or by Board of Examinations. Both these provisions use the word "consider". As already stated above, reply or explanation submitted by the Petitioner has not been considered by any authority i.e. either by Disciplinary Action Committee or by Board of Examinations. Both these provisions use the word "consider". It is not possible, on the strength of material on record or report of Committee to hold that grievance made by Petitioner against respondent No. 5 was by way of afterthought or false. Story of influence of respondent No. 5 in administration of University cannot be totally brushed aside. Hence here a chain of events/facts so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Petitioner should have been at least alleged in show cause notice and by relevant evidence probability of the unfair acts being done by her or at her instance should have been brought on record. Following passage from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is important in this respect. In AIR 1998 S.C. 5 - Rajesh Kumar v. Institute of Engineers (India), Hon Apex Court observes: - "7. The resume of the afore detailed facts gives a clear insight to the minds of the members of the Institute who sat in judgment on the fate of the appellants. The doubts as expressed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal pertaining to the material available and the sitting pattern and also that the appellants had never sat in the subsequent examinations after the period of disqualification was over, were conveniently disregarded by the Institute. It would, in these circumstances, be not wrong to assume that had the members of the Institute gone into grips with that material, the result would have gone in favour of the appellants. Conveniently, other factors were brought in replacement to conquer the field inasmuch as the appellants were put to a cramming test, there and then in order to judge their capability of memory retention in a matter of minutes. All literate men have been students at a given point of time but all have not been crammers. Those who cram do not achieve their goal by a single reading. It is a ceaseless effort for days and days till the desired result is achieved. Crammers inter se do not have any nexus with each other. The text of a book as the common source for cramming establishes no connection. Those who cram do not achieve their goal by a single reading. It is a ceaseless effort for days and days till the desired result is achieved. Crammers inter se do not have any nexus with each other. The text of a book as the common source for cramming establishes no connection. That per se cannot be evidence of any conspiracy between the cremmers to adopt unfair means in the examination unless there be material to show that there was copying of the answer books, descended from the answer book of one of the candidates, or directly from the book leading to the copying by others. The overall consideration of the Institute reflected that its members thought that they would be put to an embarrassment if the plea of the two appellants were to be accepted and therefore, thought of declining relief to the appellants. Such result cannot be permitted to follow from the deliberation of the Institute. In the interest of fair play this Court would thus step in to give a corrective dose." Even if it is presumed that Petitioner alone has been benefited or was about to be benefited out of all this, still unless and until it is shown that she had an opportunity or scope in the matter, no inference against her can be drawn and chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete for not demonstrating availability of such opportunity to her. Reliance upon judgment of Hon Apex Court in case of Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education reported at (2003) 8 SCC 311 , by respondent University is again misconceived because there in 1984 result of respondent No.3 for intermediate examination was withheld on suspicion of copying and he was issued a provisional mark sheet by Principal of College without mentioning this fact. In 1985 Board conducted inquiry, found respondent No. 3 guilty and cancelled his result and informed Principal about it. In 1986, Principal issued another provisional certificate stating that result was withheld. In spite of this, respondent No. 3 on the basis of first provisional certificate passed his graduation and post-graduation and thereafter secured job as teacher in very same College from which he appeared for intermediate examination. In 1986, Principal issued another provisional certificate stating that result was withheld. In spite of this, respondent No. 3 on the basis of first provisional certificate passed his graduation and post-graduation and thereafter secured job as teacher in very same College from which he appeared for intermediate examination. In 1993 inquiry was held about passing of intermediate examination by him and in 1995 he filed writ petition in High Court asking for declaration of result which came to be dismissed. In 1996, Principal of College informed him about cancellation of his result. The observations in paragraph 10 of judgment need to be understood in this background. Hon'ble Apex Court has noticed that respondent No. 3 was sole beneficiary of said fraud and hence presumed that he was party thereto. It is also clear that said respondent was aware of provisional mark sheet, non mentioning of withholding of result on it, issuance of provisional certificate by Principal though his result was cancelled and he secured benefit for himself out of it. Though here Petitioner is sole beneficiary, she had pointed out her possible victimisation and mala fides of her examiners and threat to deny her Ph.D. degree. This aspect has not at all been inquired into by Disciplinary Action Committee and such a possibility has not been ruled out by it. In view of this angle, it cannot be said that Petitioner alone could have committed such fraud. In AIR 1978 S.C. 1277 "Nand Kishore Prasad v. Sate of Bihar"= (1978) 3 SCC 366 , Hon'ble Apex Court considers when employee can be dismissed after departmental inquiry and standard of evidence in such inquiries. Following observations (in AIR) are important: - "18. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallised by judicial decisions. The first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India v. H. C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , "the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules.'' In the facts of present case, inference of guilt of present Petitioner has been drawn only because according to Respondents No. 1 to 4 she alone is the beneficiary thereof. Issue is already averted to above and question is of relevance of grievance made by Petitioner against present respondent No. 5 who happens to be her guide for Ph.D. degree. Had there been any finding on this angle, it could have been held that Disciplinary Action Committee has acted fairly in the matter. Absence of such finding, deviation from normal procedure directed to be followed in inquiry, not serving show cause notice as required by Clause 14(1)(a) are all the factors which turn tables against University. Various judgments on which Advocate Kulkarni has relied to press his point of less rigorous standards of evidence in fact deal with cases of mass copying where direct evidence was not available and inference was required to be drawn on the basis of material. In AIR 2002 SC 2023 Hon Apex Court has observed that " The other decision in the case of B. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 533 cited by learned Solicitor General has also no relevance for the present controversy. That was a case where it was found that not only there was scope for mass copying and mass copying did take place, in addition to leakage of question papers which was brazenly published in a newspaper and the photocopies of the question papers were available for sale at a price of Rs. 2000/- each and, under these circumstances, the Government decided to cancel the examination of the centre in question. This decision is of no assistance for the present controversy." Thus, even in mass copying cases finding as to opportunity or scope therefor is important. The approach of Court in the matter can be gathered from following judgment of Hon' Apex Court. 2000/- each and, under these circumstances, the Government decided to cancel the examination of the centre in question. This decision is of no assistance for the present controversy." Thus, even in mass copying cases finding as to opportunity or scope therefor is important. The approach of Court in the matter can be gathered from following judgment of Hon' Apex Court. In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha" reported at " AIR 1970 S.C. 1269 , Hon Apex Court observes: - “12. These figures speak for themselves. However, to satisfy ourselves we ordered that some answer books be brought for our inspection and many such were produced. A comparison of the answer books showed such a remarkable agreement in the answers that no doubt was left in our minds that the students had assistance from an outside source. Therefore the conclusion that unfair means were adopted stands completely vindicated. 13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held, must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy it self which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go. 14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta's case, 1962 Supp 3 SCR 36 = ( AIR 1962 SC 1110 ) to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. The examination as a whole had to go. 14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta's case, 1962 Supp 3 SCR 36 = ( AIR 1962 SC 1110 ) to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was also said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of he answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say. What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a fullfledged judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as universities and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centers are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that he university or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury." Adv. Kulkarni relies on 1983 Mh.L.J. 626 Hansa Baulal Dave vs. University of Poona . It is the Division Bench judgment of this Court which lays down essential minimal requirements of principles of natural justice which must be satisfied while conducting inquiry against student for mass copying and unfair means. However, in present case action is individualistic. Pankaj R. Phalak vs. Maharashtra State Board reported at 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 182 is other Division Bench judgment pointed out by him. In said judgment student made distinctive signs/ marks on his answer paper and also corresponding increase in his mark was proved by examining moderator who used those marks to identify his paper. Charge was specific and made clear to the student. In present matter, Disciplinary Action Committee could have taken pains to enlist "acts of unfair means" and could have framed charges specifically imputing motives to Petitioner as mandated by Clause 14 and thereafter could have proceeded to record evidence in her presence also as per said Clause of Direction No. 2. Why Committee members could not follow this prescribed procedure has not been explained. Similarly alleged undue efficiency in their own Ph.D. Section has not been made a ground of attack in any of communications to Petitioner. Why Committee members could not follow this prescribed procedure has not been explained. Similarly alleged undue efficiency in their own Ph.D. Section has not been made a ground of attack in any of communications to Petitioner. Prof. Hamid Ali has not been examined as witness by Committee. These lacunae in the entire exercise are sufficient to quash and set aside the impugned action of University i.e. rejection of her thesis for Ph.D. upon recommendation of Disciplinary Action Committee & debarring her for submitting thesis/treatise for higher degree for three years. Decision to lodge a complaint about alleged fabricated and forged document dated 22/8/2002 with police authorities could have been reached by University independently and need not be set aside as Police authorities are duty bound to independently and impartially investigate into the facts and grievances, and not get carried away by report of Disciplinary Action Committee. Chaudhari Anilkumar vs. Poojya Sane Guruji Vidya Prasarak reported at page No 163 of Maharashtra Education Cases (WP 1731 of 1990 decided on 8&9/11/1990 at Bombay) has been relied upon by University to contend that there can be no compromise with regard to the principle that all instances of indiscipline and malpractices must be dealt with firmly and in a manner that will provide a deterrent. However when such malpractice itself is not proved in present case, the judgment can have no application. 12. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have also stated that if disciplinary inquiry is found to be vitiated, matter should be remanded back to Disciplinary Action Committee for fresh inquiry and in support reliance has been placed upon judgment reported at (1996) 9 SCC page 322 in case of State of Punjab vs Dr. Harbhajan Singh . It is the matter in which respondent employee was dismissed after departmental inquiry and hence, after inquiry was found to be vitiated, a fresh inquiry to substantiate that dismissal could have taken place. Here, the period of bar of three years which was imposed as punishment has already expired. In such circumstances, the only other punishment is of rejection of thesis itself on the ground of fabrication of letter dated 22/8/2002. Said rejection is because of recommendation of Disciplinary Action Committee as a measure of punishment and not on any other account though it mentions Clause 16 (iv) of Ordinance No. 50. In such circumstances, the only other punishment is of rejection of thesis itself on the ground of fabrication of letter dated 22/8/2002. Said rejection is because of recommendation of Disciplinary Action Committee as a measure of punishment and not on any other account though it mentions Clause 16 (iv) of Ordinance No. 50. There is no rejection of her thesis by Shri Patwardhan as already observed above. Also as observed earlier, there is no show cause to Petitioner implicating her with preparation of letter dated 22/8/2002 or about any manipulation in Ph.D. Section. It is therefore apparent that there is no question of respondent University still wanting to proceed further in the matter. Advocate Agnihotri for Petitioner has contended that such re-inquiry is not possible as Petitioner has already undergone punishment. It is apparent that Petitioner has already suffered the punishment for period of three years and hence there is no point in reopening the controversy. Said Advocate requested Court to mould relief in her favour and award compensation to her. Petitioner has yet not been awarded Ph.D. and author of letter dated 22/8/2002 is yet not discovered. As such there is no scope for considering prayer for compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of necessary data on record such argument cannot be appreciated. It is however apparent that position as prevailing on 23/5/2002 needs to be restored and University may process further her thesis as per law from that stage. 13. In the result, the order of punishment dated 10/2/2004 issued by Controller of Examinations with report of Disciplinary Action Committee, except to the extent of direction to file police complaint are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is thus allowed partially, however, without any order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly.