THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9310 of 2010 Dated 23rd August, 2010 Between: Sarampally Abhinav. …Petitioner And Kakatiya University and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Vidyasagar Counsel for respondents: Sri T.Praveen Kumar for Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, standing counsel for University The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the notification dated 15.04.2010 including memo dated 26.03.2010. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech (Electronics and Communication Engineering) Course in KITS College, Warangal. He appeared for third year first semester examination conducted by respondent No.1 University in October/November, 2009. When he was writing Linear Integrated Circuits Lab (practicals) paper on 26.10.2009, a forbidden material was allegedly found with him. Consequently, the petitioner’s results were not declared by mentioning against his name “a malpractice case”. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show- cause notice. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned notification was issued by imposing on the petitioner the penalty of Grade-B punishment i.e., cancellation of the Linear Integrated Circuits Lab examination and all the papers for which the petitioner has appeared during that session. Assailing this action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have prejudged the issue by deciding on the imposition of punishment on the petitioner on 23.03.2010 itself i.e., much prior to the issue of memo dated 26.03.2010 calling for petitioner’s explanation. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of respondent No.1 University, the said allegation has been specifically denied as under: “I reply to para 4, it is humbly submitted that the punishment of Grade ‘B’ was recorded on 15.04.2010 only and not earlier as alleged by the petitioner. It is denied that the notification of imposing punishment of Grade B was an empty formality and it is only a post decisional action. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all such allegations.” The petitioner failed to substantiate the abovementioned allegation with reference to any material and in the absence of such material supporting the said plea, I find no reason to accept the same. It is categorically averred in the counter-affidavit that a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner and that the petitioner has admitted to the commission of the act of malpractice in his reply while requesting the University to pardon him. It is further stated that in order to strengthen the academic standards of the University, the abovementioned decision was taken. Having considered the above facts, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any illegality in imposing the abovementioned penalty on the petitioner. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12021 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd August, 2010 GHN