Judgment :- Dinakaran, C.J. Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7129/2008 wherein he has challenged the order dated 11.4.2008 of the 1st respondent- University by which penalty of denial of benefit of performance of the Examinations conducted during December, 2007 to January 2008 and debarring the petitioner from appearing for any examination till December 2008/ January, 2009 and other penalties were imposed. 2.1) The facts of the case in brief are- that the appellant is a student studying in B.E- Information Technology in the respondent-college. While he was answering the I" semester examination in Computer Concepts and C-Programming (Practical), he was found to be in possession of a mobile phone containing certain snaps relating to the subject. An enquiry was initiated into the malpractice committed by the Appellant-writ petitioner during the examination and a Committee was constituted to go into the allegation levelled against the appellant. The Committee recorded the statement of the appellant as per Annexure-R.2 which reads thus: " I was carrying mobile for communication purpose as my grandpa was sick and he wanted a contact. I had no intention of copying from the program snaps as they were solely for `revision' purpose. I apologise for my mistake. The Committee found me carrying a phone but did not find me copying from the programs in the cell. I apologise for my mistake of carrying a cell phone. sd/-Signature of the candidate" 2.2) The Committee after recording the statement of the appellant-writ petitioner, recommended as follows: " The candidate had brought the mobile which contains 43 snaps and the mobile was in on condition during the exams. On verification it is found that all the snaps are having programs and connected details of the subject. Comp. Concepts of `C' programming. Hence the candidate deserves the punishments of debarring him from three exams and a penalty of Rs.1000/-. 2.3) The 1St respondent- University, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee and the admission of the appellant himself that he was in possession of the mobile phone at the time when he was answering the paper, which was prohibited, held that the said admission of the appellant itself was sufficient to hold him guilty of the malpractice. 2.3) The 1St respondent- University, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee and the admission of the appellant himself that he was in possession of the mobile phone at the time when he was answering the paper, which was prohibited, held that the said admission of the appellant itself was sufficient to hold him guilty of the malpractice. Thus holding, the University passed an order dated 11.4.2008 imposing the following penalties:- “(i) Denial of benefit of performance of the Examinations conducted during Dec.2007/Jan.2008 (including arrear examinations); (ii) Debarred from appearing for May/June/July 2008 and Dec.2008/ Jan 2009 Examinations (including arrear subject); (iii) Rejection of semester results, Re-admission, change of college and change of course are not permitted during the penalty period; (iv) Not permitted to attend the term of higher semester till the completion of penalty period; and (v) penalty of Rs.1000/-." However the petitioner was permitted to appear for the examinations to be conducted during May/June/July 2009 and onwards. 2.4) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2008 of the 1st respondent imposing penalty, the appellant preferred writ petition No.7129/2008. 3) The learned single Judge in the course of the order, observed that the findings recorded by the Committee do not bear the signature of the person who has recorded such findings and the seal or designation of the person who recovered the mobile and that there is no proceeding or order passed by the Committee recording the reasons for its conclusion about the involvement of the appellant-writ petitioner in the malpractice. But, however, based on the admission of the writ petitioner himself that he was in possession of the mobile phone at the time when he was answering the paper, partly allowed the writ petition and modified the penalty imposed by the 1st respondent and the operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.6.2008 reads thus: " In the result and for the foregoing, while holding that the petitioner deserves to be punished for his act of malpractice, the penalty imposed shall stand modified and the examination taken by the petitioner in the month of December, 2007/ January, 2008 for the I semester shall stand cancelled. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to take the said examination during the next available opportunity. Penalty of Rs.1000/- awarded by the committee is however confirmed. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to take the said examination during the next available opportunity. Penalty of Rs.1000/- awarded by the committee is however confirmed. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 4) Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge dated 19.6.2008, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred the above appeal. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contentions that were urged before the learned single Judge. 6) We have gone through the order of the learned single Judge and given our careful consideration to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. 7) It is an admitted fact that the appellant-writ petitioner had carried mobile phone in the examination hall while answering the paper, which is prohibited. When once the guilt is admitted, the only question that remains is regarding imposition of penalty. The Supreme Court in the case of Controller of Examinations And Others Vs G.S. Sunder And Another 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82 has held that - "...One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matter of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty it is to conduct examinations fairly and properly, know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot impose fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We feel that : " The hour has come when we must clear the educational fields from poison and from fear; We must remould our standards- build them higher, And clear the air as though by cleansing fire, Weed out the damning traitors to education, Restore her to her ancient place of awe." 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we find that it is a systematic fraud committed by the appellant. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we find that it is a systematic fraud committed by the appellant. The appellant was fully aware of the charges and he had admitted his guilt. Even if there is any irregularity in the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent, the same would not come to the aid of the appellant to absolve him of the misconduct alleged against him. However, the learned single Judge, in the circumstances of the case, has taken a lenient view and modified the punishment. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no further orders are necessary on I.A.1/2008 and I.A.2/2008.