JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. Whether the performance of a student at a particular examination could be cancelled and consequential orders could be passed in view of the cancellation order, without granting an opportunity to the said student, is the question that arises for consideration in the instant petition. 2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor and also a Member on the Board of Studies, had appeared as an examinee in M.A. Part-I examination in Marathi subject, conducted by the respondent Amravati University. The examination centre for the petitioner was C.M. Kadhi Kala Mahavidyalaya, Paratwada and the roll number of the petitioner was 02674. While the petitioner was solving the paper of 'Arvachin Kavita' on 19.04.2014, the invigilator found a chit near the desk of the petitioner and a complaint was registered against the petitioner for using unfair means at the examination. The matter in respect of the alleged use of unfair means by the petitioner at the examination was considered by the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner was neither served with a show cause notice nor was an opportunity of personal hearing granted to the petitioner. Without any opportunity, by the notification dated 29.09.2014, that is impugned in the instant petition, the performance of the petitioner for the Summer 2014 examination was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had resorted to unfair means. The petitioner submitted an application for reviewing the said punishment, on 21.05.2015. The first and the foremost ground raised by the petitioner in the said review application was that the order debarring the petitioner from Summer 2014 examination could not have been made without granting an opportunity to the petitioner. The review application was, however, rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the period prescribed by the rules. Since according to the University, it was unbecoming on the part of an Assistant Professor and a Member on the Board of Studies to practice unfair means at the examination, an order imposing the additional punishment of debarring the petitioner for one year from conducting any examination work of the University, was made on 16.04.2015 after hearing the petitioner. Since according to the University, it was unbecoming on the part of an Assistant Professor and a Member on the Board of Studies to practice unfair means at the examination, an order imposing the additional punishment of debarring the petitioner for one year from conducting any examination work of the University, was made on 16.04.2015 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner ceased to be the Member of the Board of Studies in Music vide the impugned notification dated 04.06.2015. The orders dated 29.09.2014, 16.04.2015 and 04.06.2015 are impugned in the instant petition. 4. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner could not have been punished for using unfair means at the examination conducted on 19.04.2014 without granting an opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated that after the invigilator had found a chit near the desk of the petitioner while the petitioner was solving the paper of 'Arvachin Kavita', the respondent University had neither served a notice on the petitioner nor had granted an opportunity of personal hearing before the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee. It is submitted that the impugned orders are punitive and it is well settled that the compliance of the principles of natural justice is necessary before imposing the punishment. It is stated that Clause 8(a) of Ordinance No.22 of 2001 of the Amravati University provides that, the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee would adhere to the computerized procedure of inquiry and punishment, as approved by the Board of Examination as “A Computerized Procedure of Deciding the Cases of Unfairmeans and Malpractices in the University Examinations” appended to Ordinance No. 22 of 2001 as Schedule-I. It is submitted by referring to Schedule-I that without granting an opportunity of hearing, by resorting to Clause 8(a) of the said Ordinance and Clause 1 of the Appendix to Ordinance No.22 of 2001, that provides for the “Annulment of the performance of the student in the University Examination in full”, if the student is in possession of the copying material, the performance of the petitioner at the concerned examination was cancelled. It is submitted that though the provisions of Clause 8(a) do not specifically refer to the application of the principles of natural justice, the said principles have to be read in Clause 8(a) as by resorting to the said clause, the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee is empowered to decide the complaint in respect of malpractices at the examination and recommend the punishment against the concerned student. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Shri Badhe, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the University has complied with the provisions of Clause 8(a) of Ordinance No.22 of 2001 before imposing the punishment on the petitioner. It is stated that Clause 8 of the Ordinance does not provide for an opportunity of hearing and it only prescribes the adherence to the computerized procedure of inquiry and punishment, as approved by the Board of Examination as “A Computerized Procedure of Deciding the Cases of Unfairmeans and Malpractices in the University Examinations”, appended as Schedule-I to the Ordinance. It is stated that by resorting to Clause 8 and Appendix-A to the said Ordinance, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner as the petitioner was in possession of the copying material. It is submitted that Clause 9 of the Ordinance prescribes for the 'Procedure of Inquiry of Review, Appeals and Referred Cases'. It is stated that after a student like the petitioner is informed about the punishment imposed on him/her on the proof of use of unfair means at the examination, the student is entitled to file an appeal or review against the punishment and produce evidence in support of his or her innocence within the prescribed time limit. It is stated that the petitioner could have proved, by filing the review application, as referred to in Clause 9(b) and (c) of the Ordinance that the petitioner was innocent and had not resorted to unfair means at the examination. It is stated that the petitioner, however, did not avail the opportunity as provided by Clause 9 of Ordinance No.22. It is stated that in the said circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is stated that the petitioner, however, did not avail the opportunity as provided by Clause 9 of Ordinance No.22. It is stated that in the said circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent University could not have imposed the punishment of cancelling the appearance of the petitioner at the examination conducted in Summer 2014 and further debarring her from participating in the examination work for one year, without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor and a Member on the Board of Studies, has been severely punished by the respondent University without granting her an opportunity to defend the allegations in respect of possession of the copying material, as stated in the report prepared by the Invigilator, and prove her innocence. The Unfair Means Enquiry Committee was required to act judiciously and it was, therefore, necessary for the Unfair means Enquiry Committee to have heard the petitioner before imposing the harsh punishment. Admittedly, the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee has neither served a show cause notice on the petitioner in respect of the alleged user of unfair means at the examination nor is the petitioner granted an opportunity of personal hearing. It appears that by following a computerized procedure of deciding the cases of unfair means and practices in the University Examinations, the petitioner has been condemned unheard. Even if a chit was found near the desk of the petitioner while she was answering the paper of 'Arvachin Kavita' on 19.04.2014, it cannot be said, without granting an opportunity to the petitioner that the existence of the said chit near the desk of the petitioner was attributable to the petitioner and that the petitioner has used unfair means at the examination. In somewhat similar set of facts, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad Versus Ghansyam Das Gupta & Others, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1110 (V 49 C 149), held that the action of cancelling the results of the examinees respondents therein and debarring them from appearing at the next examination was vitiated for want of opportunity to the examinees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment : “If a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the Statute to act judicially.” It was further observed in paragraph 8 of the said judgment that : “The statute is not likely to provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question whether the authority set up by the statute has the duty to act judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute. A duty to act judicially may arise in widely different circumstances which it will be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define exhaustively.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to add in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment that : “The Examinations Committee of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. appointed under S.13 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 2 of 1921, when it exercises its powers under R.1(1) of Chap.VI of the Regulations framed under S. 15, in dealing with cases of examinees using unfair means in examination halls, is acting quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice which require that the other party (namely, the examinee) must be heard, will apply to the proceedings before the Committee. Though there is nothing express one way or the other in the Act or the Regulations casting a duty on the Committee to act judicially, the manner of the disposal based as it must be on materials placed before it, and the serious effects of the decision of the Committee on the examinee concerned, must lead to the conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judicially in that matter, particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees, before it can take any action in the exercise of its power under R.1(1).” “There is no doubt that many of the powers of the Committee under Chap.VI are of administrative nature; but where quasi-judicial duties are entrusted to an administrative body like this it becomes a quasi-judicial body for performing those duties, and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and adequate opportunity of presenting his case is given to the examinee.” 7. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid celebrated judgment would squarely apply to the case in hand and it would be necessary to hold that the action of the respondent University of cancelling the Summer 2014 examination of the petitioner as also her membership on the board of Studies, is bad in law and vitiated. Though Clause 8 of Ordinance No.22 does not expressly cast a duty on the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee to act judiciously or comply with the principles of natural justice, the serious effects of the decision of the said Committee on the petitioner, or for that matter any examinee concerned, would lead to a conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judiciously, particularly when it has to decide certain facts objectively and the decision may seriously affect the rights and career of the examinees like the petitioner. While holding so, we reject the submission made on behalf of the respondent University that the impugned order is not vitiated as though an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner before the imposition of the punishment by resorting to Clause 8 of the Ordinance, the petitioner could have availed the opportunity in a review, that could have been filed under Clause 9 of the Ordinance. The submission is illfounded. The submission is illfounded. An opportunity of hearing cannot be contemplated after the imposition of the punishment in the circumstances of the case and the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before the imposition of the punishment. A post decisional hearing could be contemplated only in cases where preventive, prompt and urgent actions are necessary. Such is not the case here. Also, in a post decisional hearing, there is a likelihood that the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee could proceed with a closed mind. In any case, since a pre-decisional hearing was necessary in this case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondent University is free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.