JUDGMENT : Though these appeals are listed to consider interim applications, including I.A.No.1/2021 seeking condonation of delay of 52 days in filing W.A.No.400/2021, on condoning the said delay (vide separate order) and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both sides, they have been heard finally. 2. W.A.No.333/2021 has been filed by the Registrar (Evaluation) of Visvesvaraya Technological University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’ for the sake of brevity) against the order passed in R.P.No.36/2021 filed in W.P.No.42781/2018, under which, the University was directed to announce review petitioner’s/student’s sixth Semester results immediately and also to permit him to appear in written examination for seventh Semester. 3. W.A.No.400/2021 has been filed by the writ petitioner assailing the order dated 12.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.42781/2018. By the said order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by upholding the penalty order and directed the University to permit the appellant student to appear for ‘Basic Electrical Engineering’ subject and seven other subjects in II Semester except ‘Engineering Chemistry’, which he has passed in 2019, in the next examination or the following examination, as the petitioner/appellant herein may choose to. A further direction was issued to the University to announce all withheld results immediately. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the appellant-student joined for four-year B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course at respondent-College at Mangaluru to study Mechanical Engineering course in June-2017. He appeared for the first Semester examination during December-2017 (seven papers) and he failed in two out of seven subjects. Appellant-student appeared for the second Semester examination in May-2018 (eight papers) and there again, he failed in one subject and also had two backlog subjects of I Semester examination. 5. On 30.06.2018, appellant-student appeared in the subject – Basic Electrical Engineering. On that day, Inspection Squad visited the college and found that the appellant-student had copied in the examination, inasmuch as he had seven pages of notes, which he had carried to the examination hall. The Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘MC3’ for the sake of convenience) conducted an enquiry against the appellant-student, during which he admitted that he had indeed carried the chits of paper to the examination hall, which was not intentional, but due to tension of the examination, he had not left them behind, before entering the examination hall. The Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘MC3’ for the sake of convenience) conducted an enquiry against the appellant-student, during which he admitted that he had indeed carried the chits of paper to the examination hall, which was not intentional, but due to tension of the examination, he had not left them behind, before entering the examination hall. On the said admission of the appellant-student, MC3 recommended that the appellant-student must be denied the benefit of performance in June-July 2018 examination. In other words, the examinations in which the appellant-student appeared in June-July 2018, viz., eight subjects of second Semester and two subjects of first Semester, were cancelled i.e., ten subjects in all. 6. Thereafter, the Registrar (Evaluation) passed an order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure-C) informing the appellant-student about the malpractice committed by him in the examination held in June-July 2018 and the penalties that had been imposed on him. One of the penalties was the denial of the benefit of performance in examinations conducted during June-July 2018 in all subjects, in which appellant-student had registered and appeared. 7. Being aggrieved by the severe punishment imposed on him, W.P.No.42781/2018 was filed assailing the order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure-C) and consequential reliefs were sought in the writ petition. The University, in the said writ petition, filed statement of objections along with certain documents. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by upholding the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner (appellant-student herein). Thereafter, petitioner filed R.P.No.36/2021, wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that University had taken up a policy decision to pass all students in the Semesters on account of COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, he sought for permission to appear in the seventh Semester examination, which was likely to commence from 17.02.2021. 8. Learned Single Judge directed the University to announce the sixth Semester results of the appellant herein immediately as the University had decided to promote all the students in their respective Semesters and so far as the appellant was concerned in the sixth Semester, owing to COVID-19 pandemic and a direction was also issued to permit the appellant-student to appear in the written examination for seventh Semester. 9. Being aggrieved by the order passed in R.P.No.36/2021, University has preferred W.A.No.333/2021 and being aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.42781/2018, the appellant-student has preferred W.A.No.400/2021. That is how both the cases have been connected together. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the order passed in R.P.No.36/2021, University has preferred W.A.No.333/2021 and being aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.42781/2018, the appellant-student has preferred W.A.No.400/2021. That is how both the cases have been connected together. 10. We have heard learned Senior counsel, Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, for Sri.Santhosh S.Nagarale, learned counsel for appellant in W.A.No.333/2021 and respondent-University in W.A.No.400/2021; Sri.Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.333/2021 and appellant-student in W.A.No.400/2021; and Smt.Kalyani Agarwal for Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda for respondent No.2-college and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-student firstly, contended that the order at Annexure-C dated 10.08.2018 is void ab initio. It is an order passed by the Registrar (Evaluation) without having any jurisdiction or authority. Such an order could not have been passed by him. The procedure contemplated under the Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations -2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations2009’, for the sake of brevity) to be followed with regard to any malpractice alleged against any student, is that an enquiry has to be conducted by the MC3. Thereafter wards, the MC3 has to submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor of the University in turn has to bring it to the notice of the Executive Council for its consideration and approval and thereafter the Executive Council has to take a decision on the penalty or punishment to be imposed on the student, who is found guilty of the malpractice in the examination. Learned counsel drew our attention to Clause VII, particularly sub-clauses (11) and (12) therein. 12. It was submitted that in the instant case, the procedure contemplated under the Regulations-2009 have not been followed inasmuch as even before the recommendation of MC3 was placed before the Vice-Chancellor and in turn before the Executive Council, the Registrar (Evaluation) passed an order dated 10.08.2018 imposing the punishments against the appellant-student and communicated the same to him. Therefore, the same being without jurisdiction ought to be quashed on that short ground alone. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-student next contended that the guidelines for recommending the penalties and punishments to be imposed by the University, which are in Chapter VIII of the Regulations – 2009, clearly indicate the punishments to be imposed depend on the nature of the malpractice. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-student next contended that the guidelines for recommending the penalties and punishments to be imposed by the University, which are in Chapter VIII of the Regulations – 2009, clearly indicate the punishments to be imposed depend on the nature of the malpractice. Our attention was drawn to the nature of malpractice found in clause II of the said Guidelines and the punishment that has to be imposed. In that regard, our attention was also drawn to sub-clause (6) of clause II which deals with bringing into the examination hall or being found in possession of portions of a book, manuscript, or such other material or matter brought to the examination hall. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Inspection Squad found the appellant-student with seven pages of material which aspect the student admitted during the course of enquiry. But, the MC3 had to recommend the punishment based on the severity of the case and to record reasons for the same. In the instant case, no reasons have been recorded by the MC3 as to why there was a denial of benefit of performance of all the examination or the subjects, which the student has registered and appeared in June-July 2018. According to learned counsel for the appellant-student, the punishment is severe and disproportionate and has been imposed without recording any reasons. 14. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-student contended that in the absence of recording reasons for imposition of such a severe punishment, the same is vitiated as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that even otherwise, the punishment imposed on the appellant-student is severe and disproportionate and thereby is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is need for judicial review of the same and interference by this Court in this appeal as learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter. 15. Learned counsel for appellant-student next contended that the order passed in R.P.No.36/2021 is virtually a consent order and therefore, the University had no reason to file its appeal and that the said appeal has been filed out of vengeance against the student and hence, appeal filed by the University may be dismissed. 16. 15. Learned counsel for appellant-student next contended that the order passed in R.P.No.36/2021 is virtually a consent order and therefore, the University had no reason to file its appeal and that the said appeal has been filed out of vengeance against the student and hence, appeal filed by the University may be dismissed. 16. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant-student is entitled to appear for the seventh Semester examination inasmuch as he had only one backlog subject in the first semester and as per Circular dated 23.07.2020 of the respondent-University, irrespective of the number of backlogs, a student is permitted to appear in the next odd Semester. This is due to COVID-19 pandemic and the said Circular was issued owing to the severity of the pandemic and in the interest of all students of the respondent-University. He urged that the appellant-student must be given the benefit of the said Circular also. 17. Learned counsel for appellant-student urged that the order of the learned Single Judge may be interfered with and appropriate orders may be made in this appeal. 18. Learned Senior counsel, Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for University submitted that the appellant-student has one backlog subject in the first Semester, two backlog subjects in the third Semester and three backlog subjects in the fifth Semester and in the sixth Semester he has been declared ‘pass’ on account of policy decision of the University. That the Guidelines of Regulations -2009 for recommending penalties and punishments, which has been chosen by MC3, cannot be reviewed by this Court. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that this Court may not interfere in academic matters in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Learned Senior counsel next submitted that MC3 gave its recommendation after holding an enquiry in which the appellant-student admitted to the malpractice committed by him. No doubt, the recommendation may have been communicated to the student on 10.08.2018 by the order of the Registrar (Evaluation), but the said order was thereafter placed before the Executive Council and the Executive Council ratified the order of the Registrar (Evaluation), which is applicable to the appellant-student. That when the Executive Council approved the punishment imposed on the appellant-student on 27.10.2018, the earlier order of the Registrar (Evaluation) dated 10.08.2018 stands approved. That when the Executive Council approved the punishment imposed on the appellant-student on 27.10.2018, the earlier order of the Registrar (Evaluation) dated 10.08.2018 stands approved. In this regard, reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan vs. P.P.Singh [ (2003) 4 SCC 239 ]. 20. Learned Senior counsel urged that in the instant case, the appellant-student was found having papers brought by him to the examination hall in only one subject and though he was not found copying or having chits of papers during other examinations in which he appeared, punishment imposed on appellant-student is not disproportionate, but appropriate and in this regard, reliance was placed on Director (Studies) Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, [ (2009) 1 SCC 59 ]. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference in the writ appeal. 21. In the review petition, the learned Single Judge ought not to have permitted the appellant-student to appear for seventh Semester examination, as he was not eligible to appear for the said examination. Hence, University has filed W.A.No.333/2021. 22. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-student assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, this Court may interfere in the order dated 04.02.2021 passed in R.P.No.36/2021 and not permit the appellant to appear in the seventh Semester examination. Learned Senior counsel submitted that there is no merit in the case of the appellant-student. 23. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-college adopted the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the University. 24. By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for appellant-student stated that Annexure-R4, which is the approval of the Executive Council dated 27.10.2018, has not been communicated at all to the appellant-student. What was communicated was only the order of Registrar (Evaluation) dated 10.08.2018, which was assailed in W.P.No.42781/2018. The said order was passed without jurisdiction or authority of law. The said order was void ab initio and illegal and hence, could not have been ratified. Such ratification may be made only if an order is an irregular one, but not an order which is per se void. 25. The said order was passed without jurisdiction or authority of law. The said order was void ab initio and illegal and hence, could not have been ratified. Such ratification may be made only if an order is an irregular one, but not an order which is per se void. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant-student reiterated that there was no reason assigned by MC3 for recommendation of a harsh punishment against the appellant-student and the same is disproportionate. That even the judgment referred to by learned Senior counsel appearing for University, the facts are distinct and it does not apply to the instant case. In the said case, the High Court imposed a lesser punishment than that was prescribed in the Regulations therein. The position in the instant case is converse. In the instant Regulations-2009, there is a provision for a lesser punishment, which could have been selected, as it would have then been an appropriate punishment. Since the student herein admitted his guilt, the same had to be treated as a mitigating circumstance or a factor in favour of the appellant-student. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the University may be dismissed and relief may be granted to the appellant-student in the appeal filed by him. 26. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration. It is not in dispute that the Inspection Squad found the appellant-student had as many as seven pages of material relating to the subject of examination in which he was appearing on 30.06.2018. Consequently, MC3 conducted an enquiry against him in which the appellant-student admitted the fact that he indeed had brought seven pages with him. That he did not leave the same behind on account of stress and tension of examination. Be that as it may. The MC3 on recording the findings opined that penalty or punishment had to be imposed on him. MC3 recommended the denial of benefit of performance in all June-July 2018 examinations as per its recommendations at Annexure-R3 produced to the statement of objections filed by the University. The same is dated 21.07.2018. Thereafter, order dated 10.08.2018 was passed by the Registrar (Evaluation) which was communicated to the appellant-student. MC3 recommended the denial of benefit of performance in all June-July 2018 examinations as per its recommendations at Annexure-R3 produced to the statement of objections filed by the University. The same is dated 21.07.2018. Thereafter, order dated 10.08.2018 was passed by the Registrar (Evaluation) which was communicated to the appellant-student. The same reads as under:- “Ref: No.VTU/BGM/Reg(E)/PS/2018-2019/568 Date:10.08.2018 ORDER Sub: Malpractice in university Examination Held during May/June/July 2018 -Pursuant to the recommendations of the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee following the punishment imposed on you for the Malpractice Case registered against you during May/June/July 2018 Examinations. -Denial of benefit of performance of the examinations conducted during May/June/July 2018 (all subjects for which the student has registered for the examinations). -Note permitted to take-up the term work of higher semesters till the redeeming punishments imposed. -Rejection of Semester results, Change of College, Change of Branch are not permitted during penalty period. -Results announced if any stands withdrawn. -Not permitted to take benefit of additional scheme announced by the University till redeeming of punishments imposed. -Penalty of Rs.5000/- The penalty imposed, if any, shall be paid before 25th August 2018. You are permitted to appear for all concerned examinations during Dec 2018/Jan 2019 onwards. Sd/-REGISTRAR EVALUATION To, 4SN17ME054-MOHAMMED AZVIN H K NEAR PUTTU RURAL POLICE STATION ARAYAPPU SAMPYA PUTTUR -574210 KARNATAKA” --x – 27. The aforesaid order is at Annexure-C, which was assailed by the appellant-student in W.P.No.42781/2018, on various grounds, one of the grounds being, Registrar (Evaluation) had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the said order against the appellant-student. In that context, our attention was drawn to Regulations-2009 governing the malpractice by the students during University Examinations. The provisions under the said Regulations define Malpractices; Procedure for reporting the Malpractice/s; Procedure for imposing penalties and punishments; Authority for imposing penalties and punishments, and other matters. 28. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant-student that after conclusion of the enquiry, MC3 had to submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor of the University with findings on each of the charges, together with all the documents and the recommended penalties and punishments that may be imposed. The Vice-Chancellor in turn had to place the Report before the Executive Council for its consideration and approval. The Vice-Chancellor in turn had to place the Report before the Executive Council for its consideration and approval. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant-student that the aforesaid procedure has been by-passed in the instant case and on the recommendation of MC3 dated 21.07.2018, order dated 10.08.2018 was passed by the Registrar (Evaluation), which order is extracted above, without having any authority to do so. For immediate reference, Clause VII and in particular sub clauses (11) and (12) of Regulations -2009 are extracted as under:- “VII. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES & PUNISHMENTS: 1. A Committee (i.e. Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee) appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University, consisting of Dean of faculty -(Engg.) as the Chairman, One Member from the Executive Council, One Member from the Academic Senate, two Senior Principals as members, University Advocate as Legal Advisor and Registrar (Evaluation) as Member Convener shall be constituted to inquire into the malpractices registered during Examinations. The Committee shall have a tenure of two years. 2. The above Committee shall meet after the conclusion of each semester examination on the dates fixed by the Registrar (Evaluation) and inquire on all matters connected with the students booked under Malpractices. After detailed inquiry, the Committee shall prepare a Report giving its recommendations on the penalties and punishments to be imposed, for the consideration of the Vice – Chancellor. 3. No penalties shall be imposed on a student except after an inquiry is held, as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. 4. The MC3 shall frame definite charges together with a statement of allegation on which they are based, and direct the student in writing and he/she shall be required to submit his/her reply within such time as may be specified by the Committee. 5. In the case of failure by the student to submit his/her reply or he/she fails to attend the inquiry within the time specified, the MC3 shall inquire into the charges alleged against him/her and impose the necessary penalties and punishments. 6. The student shall present his/her case himself/herself and shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose. 7. The MC3 shall in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to charge or charges. 6. The student shall present his/her case himself/herself and shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose. 7. The MC3 shall in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to charge or charges. The student shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and the documentary evidence/s produced in support of the charges as well as to give evidence/s in defense. 8. The MC3 shall not impose the penalties on any student, who is punished at least with one paper. 9. A student is awarded punishment only once though he may have indulged in malpractices in several papers. This punishment will be decided taking into consideration all malpractices during the semester examination. 10. The MC3 shall examine the evidences placed before it and inquire about the student for his/her involvement in the alleged malpractice. After ascertaining the severity of the case, the MC3 shall recommend suitable penalties or punishments on the student. The severity of the case shall be categorized as follows: a. Possession of Electronic Gadgets without any material(s) or matter, material(s) or matter on hand, palm, calculator etc. / written, printed matter or copy thereof, which is/are not relevant to the paper the student is writing. b. Possession of Electronic Gadgets with the material related to the subject / Materials or matter on hand, palm, calculator etc./ written, printed matter or copy thereof, which is/are relevant to the paper the student is writing. c. Possession of Electronic Gadgets with the material related to the subject/Materials or matter on hand, palm, calculator etc./ written, printed matter or copy thereof, which is/are relevant to the paper the student is writing and are particularly prepared for the purpose of copying. d. Possession of Electronic Gadgets with the material related to the subject / Materials or matte on hand, palm, calculator etc./ written, printed matter or copy thereof, which is relevant to the paper the student is writing and are particularly prepared for the purpose of copying and copied the material to the answer book. e. While recommending the penalties or punishments, the quantity of the material or matter and relevance of the same to the paper in which the student is booked under Malpractice shall be taken in to consideration to decide the severity of the case. f. Repeated Malpractices during the Examination. e. While recommending the penalties or punishments, the quantity of the material or matter and relevance of the same to the paper in which the student is booked under Malpractice shall be taken in to consideration to decide the severity of the case. f. Repeated Malpractices during the Examination. g. Threatening with weapons and Impersonation. 11. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the MC3 shall submit a Report to the Vice-Chancellor with findings on each of the charges together with all the documents and the recommended penalties and punishments that may be imposed. 12. The Vice-Chancellor in turn shall place the Report before the Executive Council for its consideration and approval.” 29. In response to this contention, learned Senior counsel appearing for the University submitted that even if the Registrar (Evaluation) communicated the recommendation of MC3 to the appellant-student on 10.08.2018 as per Annexure-C, the fact remains that the said recommendation was ultimately placed before the Executive Council which on 27.10.2018 approved the said recommendation as per Annexure-R4, as per resolution Item No.2.4.2 of the Agenda of the 142nd meetings of the Executive Council, held on 20.07.2018, 21.07.2018 and 18.08.2018 at VTU, Belagavi. 30. In the instant case, we are firstly concerned with the recommendation of MC3 dated 21.07.2018. As per Regulations-2009, the recommendations of MC3 had to be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor and the latter had to in turn place the report before the Executive Council for its consideration and approval and thereafter, on the approval of the Executive Council, communication had to be issued to the concerned student of the punishment to be imposed. That in the instant case, the said procedure had not been followed. On the other hand, on perusal of order dated 10.08.2018, it is noted that the punishment which had been imposed by MC3 was to deny the benefit of performance of all the examination conducted during June-July 2018 for all subjects in which the appellant-student had registered for examination. Also, the order of the Registrar (Evaluation) has imposed further punishments apart from the one that has been ratified by MC3. 31. We find that the Registrar (Evaluation) has usurped the powers of the Executive Council in the instant case and has unilaterally imposed punishments on the appellant-student. On the recommendation made by MC3, there is no consideration of the same by the Executive Council of the respondent-University. 31. We find that the Registrar (Evaluation) has usurped the powers of the Executive Council in the instant case and has unilaterally imposed punishments on the appellant-student. On the recommendation made by MC3, there is no consideration of the same by the Executive Council of the respondent-University. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor as well as Executive Council have been by-passed in the instant case. Hence, on that short ground alone, we say that the procedure contemplated as per Regulations 2009 has not been adhered to in the instant case and therefore, the punishment imposed on the appellant-student as per order dated 10.08.2018 is not in accordance with Regulations-2009. But the matter does not end. 32. The next contention of learned counsel for appellant-student is, having regard to the recommendation of MC3, the Executive Council had to consider the nature of malpractice as per Guidelines for recommending penalties and punishments and thereafter, impose the appropriate punishment on the student by according reasons. The relevant portion of the Guidelines for Recommending Penalties and Punishments to be imposed on the Students involved in Malpractices during the University Examination (‘Guidelines’ for short) is given in the tabular form, which is extracted as under:- “VIII. GUIDELINES FOR RECOMMENDING PENALTIES & PUNISHMENTS The Guidelines for recommending penalties & punishments to the students involved in Malpractices during University Examinations shall be as given below in tabular form:- Sl No. Nature of Malpractice Penalty/Punishment to be imposed I 1. Misbehavior with officials or any kind of rude behavior in or near the Examination Hall using obscene or abusing language. 2. Writing in the Question Paper / Admission Ticket & or passing to the other student in the Examination Hall. 3. Disclosing identity by writing any words or by making any peculiar marks or by writing USN on the pages other than the facing sheet in the answer scripts while answering. 4. Possession of Electronic devises like mobile, Programmable Calculator, Pen-drive and any other electronic devises / storage devises in the examination hall. 5. Communicating with any student or any other person inside or outside the examination hall with a view to take assistance or aid to write answers in the examination. Having any written matter on scribbling pad, Calculator, Palm, Hand, Leg, hand kerchiefs, Clothes, Socks, Instrument Box, Identity Card, Hall Ticket, Scales etc.,) 6. 5. Communicating with any student or any other person inside or outside the examination hall with a view to take assistance or aid to write answers in the examination. Having any written matter on scribbling pad, Calculator, Palm, Hand, Leg, hand kerchiefs, Clothes, Socks, Instrument Box, Identity Card, Hall Ticket, Scales etc.,) 6. Destroying any evidence of Malpractice, tearing or mutilating the answer script or running away along with the answer script from the examination hall or premises. a. Fine not less than Rs.2,000/- b. Denial of benefit of performance of that Particular paper in which the student is booked under Malpractice c. Denial of benefit of performance of that Particular Examination (all the subjects for which the student has registered for the examinations). d. Debarring the student from appearing for one more subsequent examinations. e. Debarring the student from appearing for two more subsequent examinations. f. Debarring the student from appearing for three more subsequent examinations. Case shall be recorded II 1. Copying from the material or matter or answer of another student or similar aid or assistance is rendered to another student within the Examination Hall. 2. Making any request of representation or inducing to bribery to Room Superintendent or and any other official or officer of the University/College for favors in the examination hall or to the Examiner in the answer script. 3. Approaching directly or indirectly the teachers, officers, officials or examiners or bring about undue pressure or undue influence upon them for favour in the examination. 4. Smuggling out or smuggling in or tearing off of the answer script sheets or supplementary sheets or inserting papers written outside the examination hall into the answer book. 5. Receiving material for copying from outside or inside the examination hall. 6. Bringing into the examination hall or being found in possession of portions of a book, manuscript, or such other material or matter to be brought into the examination hall. 7. Copying or taking aid from any material or matter referred to in sub-clause V(1 & m) to answer in the examinations. 8. Having any written matter on scribbling pad, Calculator, Palm, Hand, Leg, hand kerchiefs, Clothes, Socks, Instrument Box, Identity Card, Hall Ticket, Scales etc.,) 9. Destroying any evidence of Malpractice, tearing or mutilating the answer script or running away along with the answer script from the examination hall or premises. 10. 8. Having any written matter on scribbling pad, Calculator, Palm, Hand, Leg, hand kerchiefs, Clothes, Socks, Instrument Box, Identity Card, Hall Ticket, Scales etc.,) 9. Destroying any evidence of Malpractice, tearing or mutilating the answer script or running away along with the answer script from the examination hall or premises. 10. Committing any other act or omission intending to gain an advantage or favour in the examination by misleading, deceiving or inducing the examiner or officers or authorities of the University/college. a. Denial of benefit of performance of that Particular Paper in which the student is booked under Malpractice. b. Denial of benefit of performance of that Particular Examination (all the subjects for which the student has registered for the examinations). c. Debarring the student from appearing for one more subsequent examinations. d. Debarring the student from appearing for two more subsequent examinations. e. Debarring the student from appearing for three more subsequent examinations. The MC3 shall recommend the punishments based on the severity of the case and the severity of the case shall be recorded. III Repeated Indulging in malpractice. a. Denial of benefit of performance of that Particular Examination (all the subjects for which the student has registered for the examinations). b. Debarring the student from appearing for subsequent examinations extending up to three more examinations. IV 1. Impersonating or allowing any other person to impersonate to answer in his/her place in the examination hall. 2. Threatening with weapons or any other means to the Room Superintendent, Members of the Flying Observers, officers/officials of the Examination centers/university Rusticate the student from University. In case of Impersonation, both the students concerned shall be handed over to the police by the Chief Superintendent with an intimation to the University. In General: 1. The punishments shall be uniform and commensurate with the offence for all students committing similar offences. 2. Malpractice and punishments imposed on the students shall invariably be intimated to the concerned parents in writing by the University through the Principal of the concerned college. 3. Rejection of performance of the examination shall not be permitted for the students who are punished for Malpractice(s). 4. The student punished under Malpractice(s) shall not be eligible to take admission to the next higher semester, till the redeeming of the punishments imposed on him/her. IX. 3. Rejection of performance of the examination shall not be permitted for the students who are punished for Malpractice(s). 4. The student punished under Malpractice(s) shall not be eligible to take admission to the next higher semester, till the redeeming of the punishments imposed on him/her. IX. AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSING PENALITIES & PUNISHMENTS: The recommendations of the MC3 through the usual process shall be placed before Executive Council for consideration and approval. The Executive Council shall be the Authority for imposing penalties and punishments on the students as recommended by the Committee. The decision of the University pertaining to above Penalties and Punishments imposed on the student may be communicated to all the other Universities in the State and to any other University with which such reciprocal arrangements exist. This Inquiry under Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee shall be independent of the criminal proceedings, if any, in the appropriate court of law. X. OTHER MATTERS: Also, the Examiners shall, if he / she suspects Malpractice while valuing the answer scripts or other material such as insertion of answer sheets, revealing of identity or enclosures, such as currency, shall return the answer script with reasons in writing to the Registrar (Evaluation) by name and detest from further valuation. If already valued, marks shall not be entered in the regular marks lists in which the marks awarded to other students are furnished but enter them in a separate list which shall be enclosed in a sealed cover and forwarded to the Registrar (Evaluation).” (Emphasis supplied) 33. We have perused the same. On perusal, we find that the malpractice involved in the instant case is at Sl.No.II (6) viz., “Bringing into the examination hall or being found in possession of portions of a book, manuscript, or such other material or matter to be brought into the examination hall”. With regard to the penalty or punishment to be imposed, there are five types of punishment to be imposed depending upon the nature of the malpractice. But, what has been stated therein in the Guidelines is that MC3 shall recommend the punishment based on the severity of the case and the severity of the case shall be recorded. The contention of learned counsel for appellant-student is that MC3 has not recorded any reason for selecting punishment II(b). But, what has been stated therein in the Guidelines is that MC3 shall recommend the punishment based on the severity of the case and the severity of the case shall be recorded. The contention of learned counsel for appellant-student is that MC3 has not recorded any reason for selecting punishment II(b). He submitted that regarding severity of the case, the same has not been recorded and hence, it is arbitrary, as a harsh punishment has been imposed on the appellant-student. That, in only one paper – Basic Electrical Engineering, the appellant-student was found to be having in possession material in the examination hall by the Inspection Squad. It cannot be assumed and presumed that in all other examinations in which the appellant-student appeared, he would have copied from the material which he brought to the examination hall. Therefore, punishment of denial of benefit of performance of all subjects, in which the appellant-student had registered for examination, could not have been imposed on mere conjectures. 34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we observe that when an order is not supported by reasons or it is a non-speaking order, it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In Madhusudan Paswan vs. State of Bihar [ AIR 1989 Pat. 106 ], a non-speaking order cancelling examination of a candidate was quashed. However, even if reasons are not stated in the order, it could be deduced from the material on record, by considering the entire course of events. In Shri.Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1987 SC 1109 ], it was observed, the object and purpose of assigning reasons for a decision is to have an understanding of how the authority had applied its mind to the case. Giving all reasons, reduces the chances of arbitrariness. It is an essential requirement of rule of law and brings about fairness and transparency in the decision making process. Thus, recording of reasons being a principle of natural justice is a safeguard against arbitrariness on the part of the decision maker. The requirement to give reasons introduces clarity, ensures objectivity and impartiality on the part of the decision-maker and minimizes unfairness and arbitrariness. The giving of reasons also minimizes chances of irrelevant or extraneous considerations from entering into the decisional process and also reduces chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusions. The requirement to give reasons introduces clarity, ensures objectivity and impartiality on the part of the decision-maker and minimizes unfairness and arbitrariness. The giving of reasons also minimizes chances of irrelevant or extraneous considerations from entering into the decisional process and also reduces chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusions. Giving reasons for the decision is a guarantee that there has been application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision has not reached mechanically or arbitrarily, or on irrelevant considerations or on whims and fancies or caprice. Thus, giving of reasons is a substantial check upon the misuse of power by the decision-maker. It acts as deterrent against arbitrary action and instills a greater responsibility in the decision-making. 35. In this context, we also find that the doctrine of proportionality of punishment would apply and same has to be considered in the context of arbitrariness and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in the context of the fact that no reasons for imposing a harsh punishment were stated by the authorities of the respondent-University. This is not a case where only a single notified punishment without any other option could be imposed on the appellant-student. This is because there are as many as five types of punishments which have been envisaged under the Guidelines, depending upon the different nature of malpractices envisaged. While selecting a particular type of punishment to be imposed on the appellant-student, there must be reasons assigned for the same. But, in the instant case, there are no reasons assigned as to why punishment II(b) had been selected. Whereas, according to learned counsel for appellant-student, punishment II(a) would have been appropriate since, the particular examination, in which the appellant-student was apprehended for committing a malpractice, could only have been cancelled and a direction could have been issued to reappear in the said examination. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-student inasmuch as in the absence of recording reasons for choosing the punishment II(b) and not punishment II(a), the option exercised for punishment II(b) by the MC3 is wholly disproportionate to the nature of malpractice in the instant case. 36. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-student inasmuch as in the absence of recording reasons for choosing the punishment II(b) and not punishment II(a), the option exercised for punishment II(b) by the MC3 is wholly disproportionate to the nature of malpractice in the instant case. 36. Hence, we find that in the instant case, the punishment that ought to have been recommended was punishment II(a) viz., denial of benefit of performance of that particular paper in which the appellant-student was booked for malpractice. In this regard, we would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by learned Senior counsel for the University in the case of Vaibhav Singh Chauhan. In the said judgment, it has been observed that when a person confesses his guilt, it is often treated as a mitigating circumstance and calls for lesser punishment if that is permissible. However, this is not an absolute rule and will not apply in all kinds of cases. That in academic matters, there should be no leniency at all if our country is to progress. In the said case, the aforesaid observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of the fact that under Rule 9.2 thereof, which was the minimum punishment that had been given to the student, the High Court substituted the same by an even lesser punishment by exercising its discretion in that particular case. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same was not an exceptional case and no sympathy was called for. Hence, the aforesaid observations were made. 37. Under Rule 9.1, which was considered therein, it was envisaged that “once a candidate has been found using unfair means even in one subject/paper, he will be deemed to have failed in all the subjects/papers and he has to re-write the entire examination and not merely for the single paper in which he was found to have used unfair means”. 38. In the instant case, what is envisaged under the Guidelines for Recommending Penalty and Punishment under Regulations-2009 is not a single punishment. There is a choice/option which could be exercised by the authority which has to impose the punishment. 38. In the instant case, what is envisaged under the Guidelines for Recommending Penalty and Punishment under Regulations-2009 is not a single punishment. There is a choice/option which could be exercised by the authority which has to impose the punishment. There are as many as five types of punishments and while imposing a particular punishment, the severity of the nature of malpractice has to be considered and reasons have to be recorded for imposing such a punishment. 39. In the instant case, had the reasons been stipulated for the punishment imposed, it would have been in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the guidelines referred to above. But, in the absence of reasons being given for according the particular punishment coupled with the fact that in only one examination the appellant-student was apprehended, the denial of the benefit of performance in only that particular examination in which the student was found guilty of malpractice ought to have been imposed as a punishment and not in all subjects in which the student had registered and appeared in June-July 2018, which was totally eight subjects. 40. The principle that the penalty to be imposed must have a relationship with the seriousness of the offence or infringement, is expounded by the doctrine of proportionality in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India, [AIR 1987 SC 2387]. It was held that the doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would imply that if a sentence is imposed which is disproportionate to the offence, it would not be immune from correction. In other words, irrationality and perversity are recognised basis of judicial review. The underlying rationale is that a penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and if any penalty is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Where the punishment is “severe” and “wholly disproportionate” to the offence committed or the infringement caused by a person or a breach committed, then an element of arbitrariness is introduced in the punishment awarded. 41. In Om Kumar vs. Union of India, [ AIR 2000 SC 3689 ], the principle of right of primary review and right of secondary review were considered when a case of proportionality of punishment arose. 41. In Om Kumar vs. Union of India, [ AIR 2000 SC 3689 ], the principle of right of primary review and right of secondary review were considered when a case of proportionality of punishment arose. It was further observed that where an administrative action is challenged as “arbitrary” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the question will be whether the administrative order is “rational” or “reasonable” and the test then is the Wednesbury test. In other words, the Court would take into consideration whether the authority had acted illegally or omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether its view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. If the action does not satisfy the rules, it has to be treated as arbitrary. It was further held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questioned as being arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court is confined only to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. 42. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ], it was observed that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 43. In Union of India vs. G.Ganayutham, [ AIR 1997 SC 3387 ], it was observed that the Court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account and also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse, but the Court cannot substitute its decision to that of the authority concerned, unless the said decision suffers from procedural impropriety or was irrational. This is Wednesbury test. [Source: “Principles of Administrative Law” by M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain]. 44. Hence, we find that this is a fit case where judicial review of nature of punishment imposed on the appellant-student is called for on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. This is Wednesbury test. [Source: “Principles of Administrative Law” by M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain]. 44. Hence, we find that this is a fit case where judicial review of nature of punishment imposed on the appellant-student is called for on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. This aspect is magnified by the fact that such a severe punishment has been imposed in the absence of reasons being stated by the authorities which is a mandatory requirement under the Guidelines. Hence, we substitute the punishment imposed by denial of benefit of performance in that particular examination only in which the appellant-student was found guilty of malpractice i.e., punishment II(a). 45. We have considered the issue regarding the nature of punishment imposed in the instant case de hors the finding given by us with regard to the punishment imposed by the Registrar (Evaluation) in passing order dated 10.08.2018. We observe that despite the said Officer/Authority not having jurisdiction had passed order on 10.08.2018, and de hors the said controversy, we have construed the approval of the Executive Council of the respondent-University based on the recommendation made by the MC3 on 21.07.2018. Consequently, the punishments imposed by the Registrar (Evaluation) on 10.08.2018 would not stand the test of law and hence, the said order is quashed. 46. Consequently the following directions are issued: (a) It is held that result of the examinations in which the appellant-student appeared in June-July 2018, (except in the subject – Basic Electrical Engineering held on 30.06.2018), shall be in accordance with the evaluation made and result declared. This would imply that in seven papers in second Semester and one paper of first Semester, the result of the examinations has to be declared by the University. (b) In the subject – Basic Electrical Engineering in which malpractice was detected, the appellant-student has not yet re-appeared. Hence, he is permitted to appear in the said subject as and when the said examination is conducted by the University. (c) Consequently, in view of Circular dated 23.07.2020, the appellant-student is permitted to appear in the next odd Semesters i.e., seventh Semester even though he has a backlog of one subject in first Semester or he may have any other backlogs. (c) Consequently, in view of Circular dated 23.07.2020, the appellant-student is permitted to appear in the next odd Semesters i.e., seventh Semester even though he has a backlog of one subject in first Semester or he may have any other backlogs. (d) Since, the appellant-student is yet to clear the subject in which he had committed malpractice, we permit him to appear in the seventh Semester examination as permitted by the learned Single Judge in the order passed in the review petition. (e) However, the results of the examination of seventh Semester shall not be announced until the appellant-student clears the paper in which he was found guilty of malpractice. Thereafter, once he passes the said examination, the results of the examination of the seventh Semester shall be announced. (f) At this stage, learned Senior counsel also stated that results of the sixth Semester examination have been announced. Accordingly, we direct the University to permit the appellant-student to appear in the seventh Semester examination and also the examination in the subject – Basic Electrical Engineering, as and when they are to be conducted by them. 47. Consequently, the appeal filed by the University is disposed of and the appeal filed by the appellant-student is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition stands modified in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs. In view of disposal of writ appeal and writ petition, the pending applications stand disposed.