ORDER : The petitioner was a student of KPES Law College, Dharwad. The petitioner was alleged to have indulged in malpractices in her first, second and third year law examinations during October-1996. The University constituted a Committee to enquire into the same. A report was submitted. Large scale alterations were found in the answer papers. Thereafter, yet another committee was constituted, which also submitted its report. In view of the fact that there was prima-facie material to go into the allegations, an articles of charge dated 21.01.1998 was issued. A reply was submitted. The petitioner denied the charges. An enquiry was initiated. She participated in the enquiry. The Committee, on considering all the material, held that all the 9 charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Based on the report, the University have issued Annexure-E. On the basis of the report, a second show cause notice was issued. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner. The explanation was rejected. She was directed to surrender all her marks cards for the LLB Course issued to her. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry officer did not consider the material on record. That the findings recorded are inappropriate. 3. The counsel for the respondents disputes the same. He contends that there is substantial oral and documentary evidence to prove the malpractices of the petitioner. That she has indulged in large scale malpractices in a deliberate and intentional manner. Substantial evidence has been ledin to prove the same. Substantial opportunities have been granted to her. There is nothing forthcoming from the petitioner to disbelieve the voluminous material against her. Hence, he pleads that the petition be dismissed. 4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the University. They were cross-examined by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not cross-examine the Chairman of the Fact Finding Committee. The material such as the answer scripts of the petitioner, the upper portion of the answer script which is torn out and all other material were placed for consideration. 5. Substantial opportunities were granted to the petitioner. The Committee, having considered the entire evidence, has rightly come to a just conclusion. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order. The petitioner has indulged in large scale malpractices. 5. Substantial opportunities were granted to the petitioner. The Committee, having considered the entire evidence, has rightly come to a just conclusion. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order. The petitioner has indulged in large scale malpractices. The material on record indicates the manner in which the fraud has been committed. Hence, I do not find any perversity that calls for any interference. 6. The water boys were used to smuggle answer scripts and the marks sheets. Money was given to the said water boys for the said purpose. That identification marks were used against item No.20 of the “instructions to the candidates” and thereafter, with the aid of an University employee, managed to get answer scripts and the relative mark sheets submitted to the valuer for the purpose of altering the marks and manipulation. (i) That manipulation with respect to “Constitutional Law” paper is that the marks awarded to question Nos.5 and 6 was altered from “2” to “8”. (ii) The same procedure was adopted for the “Law of Torts” paper. That the original valuer had awarded only “6” marks with respect to question No.4, but the same was altered to “12” marks. With respect to question No.7, originally, the valuer had awarded “7” marks which was altered to “11”. That on the facing sheet, originally, the valuer had entered the total marks as “30”, both in figures and words. The same was altered to “40” and entered the total marks as “40” in figures and words. (iii) Same procedure was adopted for the paper “Public International Law”. With respect to question No.2, the valuer had originally awarded only “1” mark which was altered to “7”. With respect of question No.4, “4” marks were originally awarded which was altered to “9”. With respect of question No.8(a), originally only “1” mark was awarded which was altered to “6”. With respect of question No.8 which had subdivisions, originally “3” marks in total was awarded which was altered to “8” marks. In respect of question No.9, the valuer had awarded “3” marks, which was altered to “8” marks. That the total marks entered in the facing sheet of the answer script was originally “19”, which was altered to “40” both in figure and words. (iv) Same procedure was used for the “Hindu Law” paper. In respect of question No.9, the valuer had awarded “3” marks, which was altered to “8” marks. That the total marks entered in the facing sheet of the answer script was originally “19”, which was altered to “40” both in figure and words. (iv) Same procedure was used for the “Hindu Law” paper. With respect to question No.5, the valuer originally had awarded “7” marks which was altered to “9”. In respect of question No.7, the valuer had awarded “0” marks, which was altered to “8”. (v) Same procedure was used for the “Code of Criminal Procedure” paper. That the petitioner had attached three supplements bearing Nos.941521, 941990, 959529 which were not even issued by the concerned junior supervisor in the examination hall. In respect of question No.4 (a), originally the valuer had awarded “0” marks which was altered to “2” and “2” marks which was awarded to question No.4(d) was altered to “3” marks. With regard to question Nos.6 and 7, originally “7” marks each was awarded which was altered to “9” marks each. (vi) With respect to “Law of Banking and Insurance” paper, the charge against the petitioner was that vertical red line drawn by the valuer on the last page of the supplement indicating that no answer had been written was erased and the answer was written by the petitioner on the said page after valuation of the paper was made. The marks obtained with respect to questions nos.2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 were altered. That the total marks of “40” written on the facing sheet of the answer script both in figures and words were changed to “50”. (vii) In respect of “Drafting Pleading and Conveyance” paper, the charge was that the handwriting on the last supplement bearing No.963059 is different from the handwriting noticed on the previous pages of the answer script. That the petitioner had written answer to question No.10 and entered marks when actually the petitioner had not answered question No.10 and the marks awarded by the valuer was “0” as against the same. 7. The material would indicate that substantial evidence has been ledin to prove the charges. The fraud committed by the petitioner cannot be overlooked under any circumstance. Large scale rampant acts have been committed by the petitioner which is disgusting. She has acted in a manner unbecoming of a student. 7. The material would indicate that substantial evidence has been ledin to prove the charges. The fraud committed by the petitioner cannot be overlooked under any circumstance. Large scale rampant acts have been committed by the petitioner which is disgusting. She has acted in a manner unbecoming of a student. The facts would indicate that there were deliberate attempts by the petitioner to indulge in malpractices. It is not a stray case of any error of fact that can be considered. Rampant acts of malpractices have been committed by the petitioner for many of the subjects. The acts committed by her are deliberate and preplanned. There is nothing available on record to show any innocence of the petitioner. The material on record clearly points to the guilt of the petitioner for having committed these malpractices. The Committee having found substantial material to prove the charges, have asked for an explanation. The same being unsatisfactory, an enquiry was initiated. She has participated in the same. Substantial opportunities were given. I do not find any irregularity in the finding recorded by the authorities or by the enquiring officer. 8. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.