ORDER : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Both the petitioners before this Court were enrolled as Research Scholars in the Commerce Department of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, which is a Central University. The enrollment of both the petitioners is of April, 2014. 2. Consequent to their enrollment, they were assigned a thesis guide/supervisor. The topic of the petitioner No. 1 was "job satisfaction and workplace commitment of nurses in Government and Private Hospitals: a study in Garhwal Region, and the topic of petitioner No. 2 was "Consumer attitude and satisfaction in respect of online shopping" respectively. 3. Each of them after completion of her thesis submitted it on 31.08.2018. Initially screening of their diesis was done by Analysis Result Software of the respondent University, which found 6% similarity in thesis of petitioner No. 1 and 3% similarity in thesis of petitioner No. 2. 4. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that under the UGC Regulations namely University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations contained in Regulation 12, in case there is a similarity (which is also another name of plagiarism) of less than 10%, there is no punishment prescribed. For more than 10% similarity, i.e. for similarities above 10% to 40% there is level 1 penalty, for similarities above 40% to 60% there is level 2 penalty and for similarities above 60% there is level 3 penalty. 5. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that since in the software of the University, the plagiarism is less than 10% they are not liable to be punished. 6. In any case the petitioners were given a show- cause notice by the University Authorities on 10.12.2019, the reply of which was given on 23.12.2019 and 24.12.2019 by petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1, respectively. In the show-cause notice, it was stated by the University that their work suffers plagiarism, and hence why should they not be punished. In their reply the petitioners explained that there is no plagiarism and even if it is so, they are liable to be condoned as per the UGC Regulations. 7. In the show-cause notice, it was stated by the University that their work suffers plagiarism, and hence why should they not be punished. In their reply the petitioners explained that there is no plagiarism and even if it is so, they are liable to be condoned as per the UGC Regulations. 7. Since show-cause notice has already been given to the petitioners, of which the petitioners have already submitted a reply to the authority concerned on 23.12.2019 and 24.12.2019, there is no reason as to why the University should not take a decision on this by now. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent University Mr. Paresh Tripathi would argue that delay may have happened since for some time the University was not having the Vice Chancellor. The University has now the Vice Chancellor. 9. It is incumbent upon the University Authority to initiate proceeding forthwith, constitute a committee as prescribed under the law, which shall examine the case of the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the explanation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today, unless already decided. 10. With the observations as above writ petition is disposed of.