JUDGMENT : The petitioner, pursuing the Bachelor of Law course at D.L. Law College, Bhuj affiliated to the first respondent-Kranti Guru Shyamji Krishna Verma Kutch University, has filed the present petition praying to set aside the decision dated 24th June, 2016 whereby punishment is imposed on him by the Unfair Means Committee of the University, of cancelling the result of March-April, 2016 examination and debarring him for next one year. 2. The charge against the petitioner was that in the subject of Constitutional Law Paper-I, he had committed unfair means. The allegation was that the petitioner had come to give the examination in the examination hall by wearing a shirt whereon certain details were written. It appears that some other chit of paper was also found from the petitioner. It is stated that he received letter dated 23rd May, 2016 issued by the Director of Examination stating that the petitioner had indulged into unfair means during the examination in the aforesaid subject and that the report about the incident was given by the junior supervisor. 3. It appears that a show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2016 was addressed to the petitioner asking him to remain present before the Unfair Means Committee. The proceedings resulted into the punishment imposed by Notification dated 24th June, 2016 whereunder the petitioner was one of the several students who were visited with the punishment for adopting unfair means. 4. The principal argument of learned advocate Mr.Vishal Patel is on the count of non-compliance of natural justice. It was submitted that the Unfair Means Committee/Disciplinary Committee of the University did not follow the required procedure. It was submitted that he was not informed about the case against him and the proceedings were conducted onesided. It was submitted that the examination committee was required to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner student indicating the alleged misconduct. It was submitted that by not complying the fundamental requirements, the rights of the petitioner were violated rendering the decision bad in law. It was submitted that the petitioner was a sincere student and he was a Nagar Mantri of Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad who was not involved in the kind of mal-practice alleged. It was submitted that by not complying the fundamental requirements, the rights of the petitioner were violated rendering the decision bad in law. It was submitted that the petitioner was a sincere student and he was a Nagar Mantri of Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad who was not involved in the kind of mal-practice alleged. It was also sought to be submitted that the punishment was harsh when in addition to cancellation of the last result, there was a further ban on the petitioner for pursing studies for one year. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner pressed into service the principles laid down in (i) Bhupendrakumar Singhal Vs P R Mehta,Principal, S V Regional College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, DR [ 1990 (1) GLR 82 ]; (ii) Malavkumar Arunbhai Patel Vs Sardar Patel University [ 2007 (1) GLR 413 ] and (iii) Patel Neha Dilipbhai Vs Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat [2008 (5) GLR 4012]. 4.2 The petition was contested by first respondent University on whose behalf the In-charge Registrar filed affidavit-in-reply. Learned advocate Mr.Indravadan Parmar appearing for the University relied on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply and refuted the contentions of the petitioner and supported the decision taken by the University. It was submitted that Ordinance 133, 134 and 135 of the University Act, 2003 provide for composition and powers of the Special Committee which deals with the matter pertaining to the cases of unfair practices resorted by the students in course of the conduct of the examination as well as the aspect of punishment. 4.3 Learned advocate for the respondent University supported the decision. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Director (Studies), Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh Vs Vaibhav Singh Chauhan [ (2009) 1 SCC 59 ]. He relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in Controller of Examinations Vs G.S. Sunder [1992 (1) GLH 140]. Thereby he submitted that in the matter of enforcement of discipline in examination in the system of education, the Courts should be slow to interfere. He submitted that technicalities of law should not be imported to further the case of the student who had indulged in mal-practice. 5. Adverting to deal with the allegation of non-compliance of natural justice on the alleged ground that petitioner was not given the specific notice with regard to the allegation of unfair means. He submitted that technicalities of law should not be imported to further the case of the student who had indulged in mal-practice. 5. Adverting to deal with the allegation of non-compliance of natural justice on the alleged ground that petitioner was not given the specific notice with regard to the allegation of unfair means. It is the petitioner’s own case in paragraph 4c as under. “The petitioner states that during the examination of one of the subject the petitioner was wearing a shirt which had something in written on it. The present petitioner was not aware as what was written on the shirt worn by the present petitioner and the supervisor under the misconception caught held of the present petitioner for using unfair practices in the examination.” 5.1 It is further stated by the petitioner in paragraph 4d thus, “A report of this incidence has been submitted by the junior supervisor (who was not present when the incidence took place) and as evidence a mobile phone/digital diary and some chits of paper on which handwritten notes of the same subject have also been retrieved from the petitioner.” 5.2 Thus the factum that the petitioner had put on a shirt with writing thereon is not disputed. The petitioner was caught and the incident was reported by the Observer. The report of the Observer in the Flying Squad was sent by the Senior Supervisor to the competent committee of the University stating that the petitioner student had committed unfair means in the examination. The competent authority of the University thereafter addressed a show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2016 to the petitioner. The details of unfair means was as per the report of the Flying Squad, it was stated in the notice. The copy of the notice was produced by the petitioner himself, as well as is annexed by the respondent along with the affidavit-in-reply. 5.3 It is clear that the petitioner was aware of the incident, there was a report submitted by the Observer and on the basis of which, the petitioner faced allegations of committing unfair means. As per the petitioner’s own case, knowledge was attributable to him about the incident that he had come in the examination hall with written material found on his cloth-the shirt. As per the petitioner’s own case, knowledge was attributable to him about the incident that he had come in the examination hall with written material found on his cloth-the shirt. 5.4 The explanation of the petitioner for wearing such a shirt with written contents, was that the same shirt was used by his brother too, therefore the petitioner was not aware about any written material found on the shirt. While this explanation was hardly convincing to work in the facts and circumstances of the case, even otherwise, it was obligatory for a student taking the examination not to take any written material in the examination hall. The defence of the petitioner that he had not used the written material or that he was not aware about the content thereof is also of not avail. 5.5 Mere bringing written material in the examination hall or being in possession of such material, would by itself constitute an examination misconduct. It is not necessary that student has used the material or not. The mere fact that he was careless enough to bring some material, is sufficient to hold the student guilty of commission of misconduct in examination irrespective of knowledge or the content of the material. The standards of discipline in the examination hall have to be dealt with as nonnegotiable in the larger interest of student discipline. 5.6 A mere say that a precise show cause notice contending specific allegations was not given to the petitioner, would not amount to a good or acceptable defence in law when the facts and circumstances could demonstrate that the petitioner student was aware and was made aware about the basic facts with respect to which he was charged for unfair means in the examination. The Apex Court in G.S. Sunder (supra) observed thus, “One thing must put beyond doubt, in matters 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 import 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. One cannot import 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....” 5.7 In Kolli Mahdav Sairam Reddy Vs Union of India [ 2011 (1) GLH 460 ] which was a case in which the doctor-student was facing allegation of ragging and one of the contentions was that show cause notice containing specific case and the allegation was not issued to him, after surveying several decisions on the scope and dimensions of natural justice, the Division Bench of this Court finally observed as under. “True it is that in present case Notice informing the allegations was not served to the appellant, however, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aligarh Muslim University (supra), there would be certain situations in which even the order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 5.8 In Parth Prakash Vala Vs Anti Ragging Committee being Special Civil Application No.19143 of 2016 decided on 25th November, 2016, this Court emphasising that scales should be properly weighed when it comes to enforcing academic discipline and it was observed that the principle of natural justice cannot be bound in a straight-jacket formula. In this case also the contention was negative that non-giving of specific show cause notice vitiated the inquiry when the petitioner could not disown the knowledge of the incident and could be attributed with such knowledge. Case of Kolli Madhav Sairam Reddy (supra) was a case where student is charged for ragging and no notice was issued at all specifying the precise charge, however he was found to be attributable with knowledge of the incident and he was called before the Committee to submit his defence. It was held that absence of show cause notice did not vitiate inquiry and did not plead by itself a prejudice in conducting inquiry. It was held that absence of show cause notice did not vitiate inquiry and did not plead by itself a prejudice in conducting inquiry. The facts of the present case stand on a better footing as the petitioner was given a show cause notice and therein he was informed about the unfair means committed; he was also offered an opportunity to examine the documents. 6. The test of prejudice is a decisive aspect in judging whether the alleged breach of natural justice would result into vitiation of the inquiry and the decision taken. The test of prejudice which is a criteria to be applied while considering the plea for breach of natural justice, if applied to the facts of the present case, even then, the case of petitioner has no substance. The show cause notice was issued stating about the report of the Observer and the Flying Squad, and in that notice, while calling the petitioner before the Unfair Means Committee it was clearly stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner would be entitled to inspect all the material which he may intend to examine in relation to charge by visiting the office of the University on any day prior to the day on which he was called for personal hearing. Therefore the petitioner was not only given notice for hearing and was called for personal hearing, but was also extended a clear and specific opportunity to inspect all the material in relation to the charge to be able to raise proper defence while appearing before the Committee. 6.1 Therefore it could hardly be said that the inquiry which proceeded against the petitioner, had in its any stage violation of natural justice of such kind and nature which could said to have occasioned any prejudice to the petitioner. Furthermore, in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner addressed the aforesaid communication dated 04th June, 2016, in which also he never complained about any breach of natural justice, much less about not giving the notice containing the allegations as is now sought to be contended. On the contrary, the petitioner pleaded knowledge, also pleaded commission of mistake to be pardon. The petitioner did not suffer prejudice on any count. On the contrary, the petitioner pleaded knowledge, also pleaded commission of mistake to be pardon. The petitioner did not suffer prejudice on any count. 6.2 Dealing with the decisions relied on by the petitioner, decision in Bhupendrakumar Singhal (supra) was a case where the Court found that the witnesses having personal knowledge over the members of the Disciplinary Committee, therefore, inquiry was not held by an independent and impartial body. Such is not the allegation or case here. In Malavkumar Arunbhai Patel (supra), it was found that proceedings before the Committee did not indicate the basis on which the Committee acted and arrived at a conclusion. As the said decision in Bhupendrakumar Singhal (supra) stands true on its own facts, the last decision relied in Patel Neha Dilipbhai (supra) also did not apply to the facts of the present case which held that imposition of penalty was disproportionate and harsh and was imposed without giving reasonable opportunity. In the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no reasonable opportunity. The penalty imposed was also minimum and proportionate to the misconduct of committing unfair means. 6.3 Coming to the submission about the quantum of punishment, the penalty imposed was cancellation of last examination result in which the petitioner appeared by failing him in that examination, plus debarment for one year. This can be said to be the minimum punishment for the reason that if the petitioner was to be imposed punishment only of cancellation of result of the last examination to fail him without anything further, it would have placed the petitioner at par with an innocent student who had simply failed in the examination. Without the further debarment for one year, it would not have amounted to any punishment for the misconduct proved. Therefore by no stretch of reasoning, could it be argued that the penalty is in any way disproportionate to become arbitrary to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. 6.4 While summing up, it has to be recalled that the petitioner-student was well aware of the actual constituence of the incident and the nature of allegations about commission of unfair means. He was served with notice by the Unfair Means Committee wherein it was intimated that a report was submitted by the Supervisor regarding incident. He was extended an opportunity to examine all materials which may be used against him in the inquiry. He was served with notice by the Unfair Means Committee wherein it was intimated that a report was submitted by the Supervisor regarding incident. He was extended an opportunity to examine all materials which may be used against him in the inquiry. He was called personally to remain present and defend thereafter. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner pleaded a lenient view. He never complained of not giving any precise statement of charge. There was no aspect in the course of the action against the petitioner-student where it could be shown that any prejudice occurred to him. The complaint about the principles of natural justice could hardly be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.5 The observance of putting the person to knowledge and allowing him to raise defence about the proposed penal action would amount to adequate and sufficient compliance of natural justice. Specially in the matters of academic discipline, insistence for a tailor-made application of principles of natural justice may work self-defeating to the purpose, and may bring out the results pernicious to very object intended for the action. Thus the ground raised about non-compliance of natural justice vitiating the action and rendering the imposition of penalty as bad in law could not be accepted. 7. For the foregoing discussion and the reasons aforestated, no case is made out to interfere with the action taken and the punishment imposed by the respondent University against the petitioner. The petition fails as devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.