JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a student of B.Tech 1st Year in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. He appeared in the final examination of the first semester. On 20.12.2016 while as writing the paper for Mathematics, he was caught using unfair means in the examination. As per the report of the Invigilating Officer dated 20.12.2016 petitioner requested Answer book ‘B’ from the Invigilator, which was given to the petitioner. At that point, the Invigilating Officer asked the petitioner to sign ‘A’ answer script as well, and while explaining this to the petitioner the Invigilating Officer picked ‘A’ answer script and from it fell a piece of paper which was seized by the Invigilating Officer and later the concerned teacher of Mathematics was requisitioned to establish the importance of the document. The Invigilating Officer was informed that the piece of paper contained certain mathematical formulas relating to the examination in question. Thereafter, a report was prepared by the Invigilating Officer stating that the petitioner has been caught using unfair means in the examination. The details, as referred above, were given in the report and the matter was sent to the University Discipline Committee, which is the body authorized to look into such matters. This five-members Disciplinary Committee consisting of Dean Student Welfare and other teachers of the institute investigated the matter and opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case. It has come in the order of the Disciplinary Committee that the petitioner admitted of having used unfair means in the examination. Consequently, the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of using unfair means in the first semester external/final examination of 2016-17 and hence recommended that the petitioner be “debarred for two semesters i.e. Ist Semester 2016-17 & IInd Semester 2016-17”. The recommendation of such punishment was admittedly under the Academic Regulations on Use of Unfair Means i.e. Chapter IV clause 37. 2. The report makes the following recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor: “May kindly like to approve the proceeding of the meeting of University Discipline Committee held on 10.2.2017 on page no. 1, please” The report next contains the signatures of the Vice Chancellor dated 12.02.2017. 3. In this matter, apart from the counter affidavit which was filed on behalf of the respondents, the original records were also summoned, which are before this Court. 1, please” The report next contains the signatures of the Vice Chancellor dated 12.02.2017. 3. In this matter, apart from the counter affidavit which was filed on behalf of the respondents, the original records were also summoned, which are before this Court. 4. The student also appeared in person before this Court on 21.03.2017 and on being asked specifically as to his admission before the Invigilating Office and the Dean Student Welfare, he pointedly answered that he has neither used any unfair means nor did he make any such admission before the Invigilating Officer or the University Discipline Committee, as is being suggested. The admission which the petitioner allegedly made before the Invigilating Officer is contained as Annexure CA-1. An original copy of the statement/admission has also been placed before this Court along with the record, which reads as under: “To, Registrar Dean, College of Technology Sub. A misplaced paper found. Dear Sir, Page attached here with was unintentionally found underneath my answer sheet A. This was mishappened it come out of my purse when I was showing my student ID to the Invigilator. This was not with intentions of cheating or creating doubts in the mind of examiner but was unintentionally found. I had gone to washroom during my exam but the paper was found around 11:00 A.M. Sd/- (Udit Singh)” 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the University, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal has vehemently argued that there is no room of doubt in the matter as regarding the use of unfair means by the petitioner in the examination, and no leniency be shown in the matter. He has further apprised this Court about the relevant Regulations and would submit that considering that there is an admission of the student regarding use of unfair means, there was no other punishment which could have been given to the petitioner than what has been given to him. The Regulation under which punishment is given is known as Academic Regulations and the what is relevant for our purposes is Chapter IV, Regulation-37, which reads as under: “37. (1) The term ‘use of unfair means in the examinations’ or ‘attempt to use unfair means in the examination’ shall denote the items prescribed by the Academic Council, through its resolutions, from time to time. (1) The term ‘use of unfair means in the examinations’ or ‘attempt to use unfair means in the examination’ shall denote the items prescribed by the Academic Council, through its resolutions, from time to time. The following items are included in the category: (i) Possession of any books, notes, chits, programmable calculator or such other material and also any note(s) or signs written on any part of the body, furniture or any other material pertaining to the subject matter of the examination in the examination hall during the examination hours. (ii) Copying or allowing to copy or impersonation. (iii) Talking, whispering or signaling in any form in the examination hall or outside the examination hall during the examination hours. (iv) Any other activity which may give undue advantage in the examination to any student. (v) Refusal of a student to occupy the seat allotted to him/her in the seating plan. (vi) Any attempt to use any other means, which is the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor may be construed to be unfair. (2) Every student shall be required to bring his/her own examination material, such as set squares, scales and the like, himself/herself, as he/she shall not be permitted to borrow any of these material from fellow student in the examination hall. (3) If any student is found to have used or attempted to use ‘Unfair means’ in any examination, his/her answer-book shall be seized by the Invigilator Incharge forthwith. The student may, however, be permitted to answer the remaining part of the question paper but on a separate answer-book. (4) The Invigilator Incharge shall submit a detailed report along with the answer books of the student and other related material, if any, to the examination superintendent (Dean of the College) concerned immediately after examination is over, with a copy of the Registrar and the Dean of the college concerned. (5) A written statement of the student, found to use or attempting to use unfair means in the examination hall will be obtained by the Invigilator Incharge and be forwarded with his/her report along with any other materials found with the student which should be signed by the student concerned in token of the same having been recovered from his/her possession. (6) In case the student refuses to give a statement, he/she shall not be forced to do so but the fact of his/her refusal be recorded by the Invigilator Incharge in his/her report. (7) The Examination Superintendent shall forward the report of the Invigilator Incharge to the Student Discipline Committee for detailed investigation, which shall send its report to the Vice-Chancellor with specific recommendations within a week from the date of report. (8) Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during a pre-final examination shall be debarred from that Semester. (9) Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during a semester final examination shall be debarred the current and the next semester. (10) Debarring a student would be treated as having been dropped from the University.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the University would further argue that once there is a report of the Disciplinary Committee that the student has indulged in using unfair means in the final examination of 1st Semester, the only punishment under the Regulations is that the student is to be debarred from the current semester and the next semester as well and, therefore, now he can only be inducted in the University after getting admission in 2017-18. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Joshi and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate, there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of this Court that once the use of unfair means is established, neither the Committee nor the Vice-Chancellor has any discretion to award any other punishment but which is prescribed under the Rules, which is to debar the students for two semesters. All the same, it is an extremely harsh punishment. Nevertheless, this particular Regulation, which is evidently harsh, is not under challenge before this Court. 8. Under these circumstances, what has to be seen by this Court is that when a student is charged of using unfair means in the final examination, then the evidence against the student must be clinching and un-rebuttable. In other words, from the evidence on record, there could be no other conclusion possible but the fact that under these circumstances the student has done nothing but having indulged in unfair means. In other words, from the evidence on record, there could be no other conclusion possible but the fact that under these circumstances the student has done nothing but having indulged in unfair means. The Discipline Committee, all the same, has not examined any evidence available before it in order to give its finding with regard to the conclusion that the petitioner has used unfair means in the examination. The conclusion drawn by the Discipline Committee is based on the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted to the use of unfair means. 9. Now as far as this admission is concerned, there is indeed a statement given by the petitioner in writing stating that the piece of paper found in his possession belongs to him but then he states that it was inadvertently placed. He has categorically denied that he has indulged in the use of unfair means. 10. A submission has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a young student of 1st year B.Tech. And was presumably overwhelmed by the situation in which he was placed and, therefore, gave a statement in writing as he was directed. Since this statement was given in the examination hall itself, there can at least be a presumption as to this contention of the petitioner. 11. All the same, this defence is not available to the petitioner when he was present before the Discipline Committee, as the Discipline Committee examined the petitioner almost after one month of the said incident. But then what did he actually admit before the Committee! Regrettably, however, in its report as to the admission all the Discipline Committee has stated as under: “University Discipline Committee met on 10.02.2017 to investigate the case in detail. Mr. Udit Singh, Id. No. 50605 was appeared before the University Discipline Committee and accepted that he did possess a hand written paper and was caught by the invigilator (F/A).” 12. All the same, there is nothing to show on record that when the petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee he had actually made any admission in writing. In writ petition though he has admitted to the act that a piece of paper was found with him but he has denied using any unfair means. All the same, there is nothing to show on record that when the petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee he had actually made any admission in writing. In writ petition though he has admitted to the act that a piece of paper was found with him but he has denied using any unfair means. Therefore, under these circumstances, the findings of the Committee is based entirely on the admission of the petitioner that the piece of paper was with him and for this reason the Committee has drawn a conclusion that the petitioner has used unfair means. 13. “Unfair means” defined under Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 37 would include “being in possession of the material pertaining to the subject matter of the examination”. Therefore, strictly speaking, no fault can be found with the findings of the Discipline Committee. Consequent to the order of approval, following order was communicated by the Committee, which bears the signature of the Registrar: “This is a case arising out of use of unfair-means by Mr. Udit Singh, Id. No. 50605, and a student of B.Tech. (Industrial & Production Engg.) during 1st semester 2016-17 in external examination in the course “BPM-131 Mathematics” on 20.12.2016. A report was lodged by the invigilators to Dean College of Technology. The matter was discussed in College Disciplinary Board and referred the same to the University Disciplinary Committee for investigation and further action. The University Disciplinary Committee met on 10.02.2017 and thoroughly investigated the case. Mr. Udit Singh, Id. No. 50605 was found guilty of using unfair-means during 1st semester 2016-17 in external examination. The committee recommended for the award of the following punishment to Mr. Udit Singh, Id. NO. 50605 as per the provision in the Academic Regulation on “Use of Unfair means” at Chapter-IV clause 37. “Debarred for two semester i.e. Semester 2016-17 & IInd Semester 2016-17” The Vice-Chancellor has approved the recommendation of University Discipline Committee and accordingly Mr. Udit Singh, Id. No. 50605 is hereby debarred for two semester i.e. 1st Semester 2016-17 and IInd Semester 2016-17.” 14. All the same, the findings of the Discipline Committee are only in the nature of a recommendation. Whether a student has to be debarred for the Semesters or not is a decision which ultimately has to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. No. 50605 is hereby debarred for two semester i.e. 1st Semester 2016-17 and IInd Semester 2016-17.” 14. All the same, the findings of the Discipline Committee are only in the nature of a recommendation. Whether a student has to be debarred for the Semesters or not is a decision which ultimately has to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Considering the fact and, as it has already been observed by this Court, that the punishment prescribed by law is an extremely harsh punishment, it is expected that the Vice-Chancellor under these circumstances would apply his mind to the nature of the case and thereafter pass an order. No order seems to have been passed by the Vice-Chancellor. From records, which have been presented before this Court, on recommendation of the Committee there are just bare signatures of the Vice-Chancellor –nothing more! 15. In view thereof, the order dated 02.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed. 16. Having passed the above said order, this Court not only would give an opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor but, on the other hand, would request the Vice-Chancellor to appreciate the entire case including the report of the University Discipline Committee and other evidence on record as well as the statement of the petitioner preferably after giving a personal hearing to the student and thereafter take a decision in the matter preferable within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. A personal hearing, however, would not mean that the petitioner would be represented by any other person, including a lawyer. For abundant precaution, the petitioner would be permitted to appear in the 2nd semester classes till the decision is finally taken by the Vice-Chancellor. It is made clear that this permission to the petitioner to appear in the second semester classes should not be taken as any comment on the merit of his case. The Vice-Chancellor must take a decision on the merit of the case, keeping all aspects into consideration, including the discipline of the institute. 17. Let certified copy of this order be issued within twenty-four hours on payment of usual charges.