O.P. Saxena, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 12th July 1984 ( Annexure 11) and the cancellation of his result vide order dated 1st October, 1984 (Annexure 3).
(2.) THE Petitioner appeared in the B. Com. Part II Examination of the Allahabad University for the year 1984. On 23rd May 1984, while the Petitioner was answering the question paper, the Flying Squad made a surprise check -up. A hand -written chit containing material pertaining to the syllabus of the question paper of that day was recovered from the Petitioner's answer -book. The Chief Invigilator immediately gave notice to the Petitioner and called upon him to furnish his explanation. The Petitioner denied the recovery of unauthorised material. On 12th July 1984, the Petitioner was served with show cause notice (Annexure 1). On 12st July 1984 the Petitioner submitted reply (Annexure 2) to the show cause notice. The Vice -Chancellor appointed an Unfair Means Committee for examining the cases of use of unfair means. The Unfair Means Committee examined the case of the Petitioner and after considering his reply, it was satisfied that the Petitioner was guilty of the offence referred to in Ordinance 16(A)(i) and cancelled the examination of the B. Com. Part II. Annexure 3 is the copy of the result of the enquiry made by an Unfair Means Committee in respect of all the candidates alleged to have used unfair means. Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter -affidavit is the copy of order passed in respect of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the result inter alia on the grounds that the show cause notice issued to him was vague and lacking in material particulars, that it did not disclose the material and evidence on which it was based, that the Petitioner was denied opportunity of cross -examination, that the Petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the Head Examiner, that the Unfair Means Committee did not record any finding regarding the suit of the Petitioner and that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and wholly unwarranted and is in violation of law and principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE Respondent contested the petition with the allegations that the enquiry against the Petitioner was conducted in accordance wish the revised ordinance on the use of unfair means and causing disturbances in examination that the Petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the allegations made against him, that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the rules framed for this purpose and after considering the representation made by the Petitioner and that a finding of guilt was also recorded.;