ORDER : 1. Petitioner was a law student pursuing his professional law course in R.V. Bidap Law College at Bidar. According to the respondents, he was caught red handed while copying in the examination held on 04.07.2019 and a malpractice case was registered against him. After enquiry respondent No.2 passed the impugned order at Annexure-D which reads as under: "This is to inform you that your case has been considered by the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee at its meeting and the following decision is taken by the Committee as per Karnataka State Law University Examination Ordinances-2014. "After considering the averments made and the written statements submitted by the Junior Supervisor, the Principal and the Squad Members, there is reason to believe that the person in the CCTV footage is Mr. M. Bharath Kumar Reddy. This is further confirmed by the fact that the expert opinion on this MPC Case also reveals that the candidate has in fact copied from the copying material that fell through the window. Further Smt. Sangeeta M. Udbal, who was working as Junior Supervisor in the same hall has submitted a letter which is submitted to the committee by the Principal of the College. In this letter she states that Mr. M. Bharath Kumar Reddy threw the chits outside the window and immediately went out of the examination hall." Hence, in these circumstances it is recommended that punishment may be imposed as per clause C (5) of Ordinance Governing malpractice by candidates i.e., The Candidate shall be debarred from taking next two available examination (in any semester) in all the papers, besides forfeiting his performance in the examination in which he commits malpractice, by imposing a penalty of Rs.500/-. Further candidate shall not be permitted to keep terms for the next higher course or pursue other alternative courses till their term of punishment is over." 2. Further candidate shall not be permitted to keep terms for the next higher course or pursue other alternative courses till their term of punishment is over." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted is illegal, without authority of law and contrary to "The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by Candidates Appearing in Examination and Officials/Supervisory Staff, Punishment, Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009" and submits that no documents were provided to the petitioner before the commencement of the enquiry and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine any of the witnesses and merely based on the statement of the supervisor and on the basis of the CCTV footage, the impugned order has been passed in stark violation of the basic principle of natural justice and hence the impugned order at Annexure-D and the consequent punishment imposed on the petitioner is illegal and without authority of law is liable to set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has filed a detailed statement of objection contending that a valid and proper enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel had referred to the proceedings of the Mal Practice Committee held on 18.10.2019 and pointed out that the petitioner was issued with prior notice and he actually participated in the proceedings but refused to sign the order sheet and failed to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore the allegations made against the respondents are baseless and contrary to the records maintained by the mal practice committee. 4. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the petitioner having been caught red handed and the material used for malpractice having been recovered in his presence, there is prima facie material to show his misconduct and therefore there is no illegality whatsoever, either in the procedure conducted by the respondent No.2 or in the punishment imposed against him and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considered the submissions and perused the records. The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by candidates appearing in examination and Officials/ Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University, Act, 2009 specifically provides for the Procedure for Conducting enquiry and Reporting. 5. Considered the submissions and perused the records. The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by candidates appearing in examination and Officials/ Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University, Act, 2009 specifically provides for the Procedure for Conducting enquiry and Reporting. It reads as under: Procedure for Conducting enquiry and Reporting: (a) The Chairman of the Malpractice Consideration Committee (MPCC) shall fix a date for the conduct of inquiry in respect of each case. (b) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall send a notice, by post Under Certificate of Post, to all the candidates booked for Malpractice Case asking them to appear before the Malpractice Consideration Committee (MPCC) for enquiry on the date and time and the venue of the enquiry mentioned in the notice and charge in brief, against the accused. (c) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall also send a copy of the notice to the Principal of the college to serve the notice to the accused under due acknowledgement. (d) (i) A person served with the notice of enquiry shall present himself before the MPC on the date, time and the venue of enquiry, (ii) If a person served with the notice of enquiry fails to appear before the committee on the prescribed date but sends a written submission (so as to reach the MPCC before the date of the enquiry) accepting the charges and admitting that he/she is guilty of committing the act/s of indiscipline or malpractice, he/she is charged with, the committee may, without insisting on the presence of the person for the enquiry, submit its report and recommendation in respect of the case to Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the submission received from the candidate. (iii) In all other cases, a person served with the notice of enquiry shall personally appear for the enquiry. If a person fails to appear before the MPCC the committee shall proceed to decide the case exparte and on due consideration of the merits of the case, may make its report and recommendation in respect of the case to the Vice-Chancellor. (e) When the accused person appears before the Committee for the enquiry, the MPC Committee shall read out the charges made against him/her and examine the person in the matter of the indiscipline or malpractice charge reported against him/her. (e) When the accused person appears before the Committee for the enquiry, the MPC Committee shall read out the charges made against him/her and examine the person in the matter of the indiscipline or malpractice charge reported against him/her. If the committee finds it necessary to examine or enquire any other person with regard to the matter enquired into, the committee may do so. The committee shall record all the statements of the accused and other persons examined or enquired in the case. (f) The Committee shall read out the recorded statements to the accused and obtain his/her signature on the recorded sheets, along with his/her statement. (g) In all cases of indiscipline or malpractice the accused shall defend his/her case personally and no other person shall be allowed to represent the accused. (h) After the completion of the enquiry the committee shall submit its report to the Registrar (Evaluation) for further needful action. (i) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall submit all the MPCC reports to the Vice-Chancellor at the earliest. 6. A perusal of the proceedings conducted by the mal practice committee reveals that though the petitioner appeared before the Committee, charges were not read over and his plea was not recorded. There is nothing in the proceedings recorded by the respondent No.2 to indicate that any charge was framed against the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, the very basis for enquiry having been taken away the subsequent proceedings conducted by the petitioners by examining witnesses on behalf of respondent No.2 do not assume any significance. Since the enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 is not in accordance with procedure contemplated under the above notification solely on this ground, the impugned order at Annexure-D and the consequent punishment imposed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 7. It is also noted that no finding has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged misconduct. In the wake of this defect, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly petition is allowed. Impugned order at Annexure-D is set aside. The case is remitted to respondent No.2 to place the matter before the Malpractice Committee which shall conduct the enquiry against the petitioner strictly in accordance with "The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by candidates appearing in examination and Officials/ Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University, Act, 2009". The case is remitted to respondent No.2 to place the matter before the Malpractice Committee which shall conduct the enquiry against the petitioner strictly in accordance with "The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by candidates appearing in examination and Officials/ Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University, Act, 2009". Since the upcoming examination is stated to have been scheduled on 23.12.2019, petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 16.12.2019 without any further notice or intimation to take further date for the enquiry. In the event the enquiry cannot be commenced or cannot be completed on or before 22.12.2019, the petitioner shall be permitted to write the ensuing examination commencing from 23.12.2019. The results of the said examination shall be subject to the order passed by the malpractice committee. 8. In the event, petitioner fails to appear before respondent No.2 on 16.12.2019 and fails to appear before the Malpractice committee as per the instruction of respondent No.2, this order shall become inoperative and the order passed by the examination committee at Annexure-D shall be given effect to. 9. In view of this order, respondent No.2 is directed to declare the results of the examinations so far written by the petitioner in respect of backlog subjects.