JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Chandreshwar Prasad alongwith Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi alongwith Sri R.B. Vidyarthy, learned counsel appearing for the university. 2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue writ of ceriorari quashing the order dated 25.8.2015, passed by respondent No. 3, by which petitioner’s result of LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Examination 2014-15 has been cancelled. 3. The order of cancellation has been challenged on number of grounds. Considering the same, learned counsel for the respondent was granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant thereto counter-affidavit has been filed but the petitioner has not filed rejoinder-affidavit for the reasons that the record itself has been produced before the Court. 4. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner herein has appeared in LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Examination 2014-15 conducted by the University. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 2.6.2015 to show-cause stating therein that when he was appearing in the examination of Criminal Procedure Code on 12.5.2015 (LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Course) he was found using unfair means/making efforts to use unfair means (it is not clear as to whether the petitioner was using unfair means or trying to use unfair means from the perusal of the show-cause notice.) with the report “caught by flying squad with unfair means (UFM) but taken by the candidate”. 5. The petitioner, herein has filed his reply on 3.6.2015 stating therein that it appears, under some misconception show-cause notice has been given to him as during the examination he has never used any unfair means. 6. Considering the petitioner’s reply and the charges levelled against the petitioner Unfair Means Committee had decided to cancel the examination of LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Examination 2014-15 of the petitioner while exercising the power vested in the Committee under the Ordinance 1.6 (A)(i) of Ordinance No. 60 of University of Allahabad. 7. This order has been challenged on number of grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has neither used not tried to use unfair means and show-cause notice has been served under some misconception. 8. 7. This order has been challenged on number of grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has neither used not tried to use unfair means and show-cause notice has been served under some misconception. 8. For deciding the controversy it would be appropriate to quote relevant Ordinance contained in Ordinance No. 60 of the Allahabad University governing the field of use of unfair means, which reads as under : “(A) Unfairmeans : A candidate shall be deemed to have used “unfairmeans” if the candidate is in possession of unauthorized material or if he has transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorized material or if he intimidates or threatens or mahhandles or uses voilence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall.” (B) Possession of unauthorized material : “Possession of unauthorized material by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorized material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its invirons or having such material on him in the urinal/toilet or the passage thereto or there from at any time from the commencement of examination till its end.” (C) Unauthorized material : “Unauthorized material” shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of the examination, printed, typed, written, or otherwise on paper, cloth, wood or other material, in any language or in the form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing; and any device such as Cell Phone, Pager etc. for communicating or outside examination hall. for communicating or outside examination hall. (D) A candidate found in possession : “A candidate found in possession” shall mean a candidate reported in writing as having been found in possession of unauthorized material by the invigilator or Head Invigilator or by a Teacher or official authorized in this behalf even if the unauthorized material is not produced as evidence because of its being reported as swallowed or otherwise destroyed or snatched away or otherwise taken away by the candidate or by any other person acting on his behalf provided that such report is submitted to the Controller of Examinations, University of Allahabad, or an officer deputed for the purpose on his behalf within three hours or the end of the examination concerned after authentication by the Centre Supdt./Head Invigilator concerned (alongwith the unauthorized material found, if available as evidence). (E) Material related to the subject of the examination : “Material related to the subject of the examination” shall if the material is produced as evidence, mean any material certified as related to the subject of the examination by a teacher of the subject. If the material is not produced as evidence for any of the reasons referred to in (D) above, the presumption shall be that the material did relate to the subject of the examination. 1.3 A candidate found using unfairmeans in an examination shall be served with a notice therefore in the examination hall itself and if he refuses to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice, such notice shall be sent to him by registered post within seven days of the incident. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. If no reply is received within this period, it would be presumed that the candidate has nothing to state in his defense. 1.4 Punishment prescribed in these Ordinance (No. 1.1 to 1.6) shall be awarded by a committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the Vice-Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The quorum of this Committee shall be three. 1.4 Punishment prescribed in these Ordinance (No. 1.1 to 1.6) shall be awarded by a committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the Vice-Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The quorum of this Committee shall be three. 1.5 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 above shall consider : (a) the report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorized material; (b) the reply of the candidate, if any, to the notice; (c) the report of the examiner concerned, if any, regarding the transcription or non transcription of the unauthorized material of which the candidate was found in possession; (d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University; and (e) any other material. 1.6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter. A. (i) For possession of unauthorized material or (ii) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator or (iii) For communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question. B. .......... ......... .......... .......... C. .......... .......... ......... ........” 9. From the perusal of Clause (D) of aforesaid ordinance it transpires that if a candidate is found in the possession of unauthorized material then a report is to be submitted to the Controller of examinations or Register of University of Allahabad or an officer deputed for the purposes on his behalf within three hours or the end of the examination concerned after authenticated by the centre Supdt./Head Invigilator concerned (alongwith the unauthorized material found, if available as evidence). 10. Clause 1.3 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides that a candidate found using unfair means in an examination, shall be served with a notice in the examination hall itself, and if he refuses to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice, such notice shall be sent to him by registered post within seven days of the alleged incident. Clause 1.3 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides that a candidate found using unfair means in an examination, shall be served with a notice in the examination hall itself, and if he refuses to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice, such notice shall be sent to him by registered post within seven days of the alleged incident. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issuance of such notice. 11. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issuance of such notice. 11. On being confronted as to any prescribed proforma has been published by the university for sending report in such cases, Sri Tripathi has invited attention of this Court towards annexure1 to the counter-affidavit, which reads as under : xksiuh; Øekad------------------------ bykgkckn fo'ofo/kky; ijh{kk es vuqfpr lk/ku iz;ksx vFkok vuqfpr lk/ku iz;ksx dk iz;Ru lEca/kh ekeyksa dh vf/kd`r lwpuk ds fy, izi= fVIi.kh %& izR;sd ijh{kkFkhZ ds fy, dsoy ,d gh izi= dk iz;ksx gksuk pkfg,sa Hkkx&1 ijh{kk dk uke -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ijh{kkFkhZ dk vuqØekad 45168 ijh{kkFkhZ dk uke izrhd fe Jk Ikjh{kkFkh ds firk dk uke MhŒlhŒ fe Jk vkoklh&Nk=kokl@Msyhxslh vFkok HkwriwoZ Nk=---------------------------------------------------------------------- dsUnz-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- uke] fo"k; ,oa iz'u i=] ftles ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk vuqfpr lk/ku iz;ksx djus dk iz;Ru lEca/kh lwpuk izkIr gqbZA ¼v½ fo"k;      ¼c½ iz'u i= ,d fnukad 12&5&15 fnu ----------------------------le;----------------------------------- 1 & d{k fujh{kd dh fjiksVZ %& dsUnz----------------------------------                                    iw.kZ gLrk{kj fnukad 12&5&15 d{k fujh{kd ----------------------- le;------------------------------------ 2- ijh{kk dsUnz ds eq[; fujh{kd dh foLr`r fjiksVZ okaNuh; gSA fnukad ------------------------------------------------- le;----------------------------------------          eq[; fujh{kd ijh{kk dsUnz 3- iqLRkdks rFkk iz'Uk i=ks o vU; vfofgr lkexzh dk fooj.k] tks ijh{kkFkhZ;ks ds ikl ls izkIr gqvk vkSj bl vf/kd`r lwpuk ds lyaXu gS %& fVIi.kh % mi;qDRkZ lHkh lkexzh ij ijh{kk dsUnz ds eq[; fujh{kd dk gLrk{kj vafdr gksuk pkfg;sA eq[; fujh{kd ls fuosnu gS fd fuEukafdr fcUnqvks ij vk/kkfjr foLr`r vk[;k ns] tks blls lEcf/kar u gks mls dkV nsA ¼1½ iqLrd@iqLrdks dk uke ------------------------------------------- 1- --------------------------------------------------------------- 2- ------------------------------------------------------------- 3- ------------------------------------------------------------- ¼2½ iqLrdks ls foyx fd;s x;s i`"Bks dh la[;k] ;fn dksbZ gS ------------------------------------------------------------ ¼3½ ¼v½ gLrfyf[kr i`"Bks dh la[;k ¼c½ eqqfnzr i`"Bks dh la[;k ¼l½ efl &'kks"kd i=ks dh la[;k ¼n½ vU; lk/ku ftldk mYys[k ¼v½ ¼c½ o ¼l½ esa ugha gSA ¼4½ ;fn oL= ¼dksV] deht] ik;tkek] /kksrh] lkM+h] :eky½ layXu gS dk fooj.k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  ¼5½ dksbZ vU; oLrq ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fnukad -----------------------------------------                            gLrk{kj ---------------------------------                                                               eq[; fujh{kd 4&ijh{kkFkh;ksa }kjk Lofyf[kr vk[;k] tks rRdky izkIr dj ysuk pkfg;sA eSa mi;qDr fjiksZVZ ls voxr gqvk vkSj bl lEca/k esa esjh vk[;k vFkok mrj fuEu iz'uksŸkj ds :i esa Hkh vafdr gSaaA ¼1½ D;k mi;qDr oLrq, vkils izkIr gqbZ FkhA ¼v½ D;k os oLrq, vki ds 'kjhj ls izkIr dh x;h \------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¼c½ D;k os oLrq;s vkids MsLd ;k dqlhZ ls izkIRk dh x;h---------------------------------------------------------------- ¼2½ ;s oLrq, vkius vius ikl D;ks j[kh \ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¼3½ D;k vkius buls dksbZ lgk;rk fy;k gS\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¼4½ D;k vkidks bl lECkU/k esa dqN dguk gS\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fnuakd -------------------------------------------                gLrk{kj ijh{kkFkhZ izrhd feJk LFkk;h irk --------------------------------------               irk i=kpkj Mh 46@26 ,&1] euh gjh VksVk ydk] okjk.klh eS izekf.kr djrk gw¡ fd mi;qDRkZ vk[;k ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk esjs le{k nh xbZA eS izekf.kr djrk gw fd ijh{kkFkhZ us dksbZ fyf[kr vk[;k nsus ls vLohdkj fd;kA gLrk{kj eq[; fujh{kd ijh{kk dsUnz 12. From perusal of first page of above proforma it transpires that it requires complete signatures of invigilator and head invigilator with date and time. 13. But here it neither contains the signatures of invigilator nor Head Invigilator of the examination centre nor time when this proforma was filled up. 14. It also transpires that the ‘report’ as required to be submitted to the Controller of the examination /Registrar of the university within three hours or at the end of the examination has not been submitted as it does not mention anywhere as to when and at which time report was submitted. 15. Ordinance 1.3 provides that a candidate found using unfair means in a examination, shall be served with a notice in the examination hall itself or if he refuses to accept or avoids or escape the personal receipt of notice, such notice shall be sent to him by registered post within seven days of the incident and the candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days. 16. From the perusal of record as well as counter-affidavit it transpires that the petitioner was neither tried to be served the notice as intended under the Ordinance No. 1.3 nor he refused to accept the same therefore it was to be sent through registered post within seven days from the date of incident. Here from perusal of the notice, it transpires that it was dispatched on 24.5.2015 after 12 days and received by the applicant on 2/3.6.2015. 17. Sri Tripathi has also produced the answer script of the first paper. From perusal of which it transpires that the invigilator has mentioned as “caught by flying squad with UFM taken by the candidate”. However after making round it is mentioned as snatched. In the show-cause notice only charge is “UFM have been taken by the candidate” and there is no mentioned about the snatching. 18. From the aforesaid discussion following undisputed facts would reveal. 1) The Flying Squad/Invigilator has not submitted the report to the controller of the examination /Registrar of the University within three hours or the end of the examination as required under Ordinance (D). On the contrary the report sent, does not mention the date and time. 2) It also does not contain the signatures of the Invigilator and Head Invigilator including the time. On the contrary the report sent, does not mention the date and time. 2) It also does not contain the signatures of the Invigilator and Head Invigilator including the time. 3) It is also apparent that no notice was tried to be served upon the petitioner in the examination hall and it was sent after 12 days of the date of alleged incident, which is in contravention of Ordinance No. 1.3. 19. While awarding the punishment aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been examined by the Unfair Means Committee, which was consisted of five persons. 20. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts it is apparent on the face of the record that the prescribed proforma on which report was sent, does not contain the signatures of Invigilators including mention of time. 21. The purpose of sending notice within three hours in ordinanceD and within seven days in the case of refusal through registerd post under Ordinace 1.3 is purposive in order to avoid further manipulation and quick decision by the U.F.M. Committee in these type of cases in order to save the career of the student. The late decision may disentitle the successful candidate’s admission for future career or it may otherwise ruin the career of the students. 22. Here in this case, time of visiting the flying squad has neither been mentioned nor the report was sent within three hours or at the end of examination, which means everything has been done contrary to statutory requirement. 23. The petitioner in his reply, has specifically stated that the charge has been framed against the him under some misconception as he has never used any unfair means. This reply to my mind carries weight. Had there been any use of unfair means or effort of use of unauthorized material or possession of any unauthorized material that must have been mentioned and required action must have been taken as required in the aforementioned ordinance but here in this case there is no mention about the place from where the unauthorized material was recovered whether it was found in the desk, near by desk or from his pocket or somewhere else, the report, ought to have been submitted by the invigilator as required under the ordinance D of Ordinance No. 60 of Allahabad University. The sending of report after 12 days, that too, by registered post in contravention to the Ordinance No. 1.3 itself suggest that everything had been cooked up later on. Had there been such incident there must have been something on record to show that the required report could not be sent or delayed on account of the conduct of the petitioner or otherwise for any other valid reasons. 24. The aforesaid ordiances in my opinion, are mandatory in nature particularly for the reasons that on the basis of relevant ordinance punishment is inflicted upon the student, which may spoil in the entire career and makes the career of student stigmatic, therefore before awarding such punishment the strict observance of relevant ordinance in respect of use of unfair means has to be observed and if the Unfair Means Committee fails to observe the procedural part meaning thereby it is making decision faulty contrary to statutory provisions. The intention of the framers of the ordinance is very much clear which has pursuaded me to hold the aforesaid ordinance mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1952 SC 181 ; State of U.P. and others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 ; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur, AIR 1965 SC 895 ; and State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 ; Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303 ; Dinkar Anna Patil and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1999) 1 SCC 354 ; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2031 ; Balwant Singh and others v. Anand Kumar Sharma and others, (2003) 3 SCC 433 ; Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 2003 SC 511 ; and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2004 SC 2036 ); Surendra Prasad Rai v. Additional Commissioner Administration Varanasi and others, 2013(8) ADJ 762. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the opinion that the Unfair Means Committee has miserably failed to consider the relevant aspect of the matter and inflicted the punishment without application of mind. 26. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the opinion that the Unfair Means Committee has miserably failed to consider the relevant aspect of the matter and inflicted the punishment without application of mind. 26. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of cancellation of petitioner’s result of LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Examination 2014-15 is hereby quashed. The Examination Controller of the university is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of LL.B. (Hons.) VIth Semester Examination 2014-15 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. 27. The original record has been returned to Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the University. ——————