HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2010 Date : 07.02.2011 Between : R.Revanth Kumar. …..Petitioner And Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Ananthapur, rep. by its Registrar & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2010 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings, dated 01.06.2010, issued by the 2nd respondent, detaining the petitioner for the academic year 2010-2011, and debarring him from writing any examinations during October 2010 and April 2011, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, set aside the same. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech, studying in the 2nd respondent-college. While conducting examinations on 3rd of May 2010, the authorities have noticed that there is impersonation by one other student by name Mahaboob Basha, writing the examinations of the petitioner. On the ground that both the petitioner as well as the said Mahaboob Basha have confessed to that effect before the malpractice committee, initially, Principal of the 2nd respondent-college has passed an order, dated 3rd of May 2010, barring the petitioner from writing the remaining examinations. Thereafter, further order, dated 1st of June 2010, is passed by the Principal, barring the petitioner from writing any examinations during October 2010 and April 2011. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that as there was an earlier order, dated 3rd of May 2010, imposing punishment on the petitioner, it is not open for the respondents to pass another order, dated 1st of June 2010, by increasing the punishment. It is further submitted that in any event, the order, dated 1st of June 2010, was not preceded by any show cause notice and inquiry. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that immediately after noticing the impersonation, as an interim measure, the order, dated 03.05.2010 was passed, debarring the petitioner from writing the remaining examinations, and after recommendations of the malpractice committee are received, the order, dated 1st of June 2010 came to be passed. It is further submitted that as much as the petitioner as well as Mr.Mahaboob Basha have confessed about impersonation in their statements before the malpractice committee, no show cause notice is necessary. With reference to the above submissions, it is to be noted that during the examination on 3rd of May 2010, when impersonation is noticed, as an immediate measure, an order was passed, but that cannot be construed as a final order against the allegations made against the petitioner. After receipt of recommendations from the malpractice committee, it is always open for the respondents to pass appropriate final orders basing on such recommendations. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there are two orders punishing the petitioner. At the same time, it is to be noted that though the statements of petitioner as well as Mr.Mahaboob Basha seems to have been recorded, it is well settled legal position that before imposing the punishment, the petitioner should be given notice. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not allowed to write the remaining examinations in the month of May 2010 and also was not allowed to write the examinations during October 2010. Imposition of such punishment barring the petitioner from appearing for further examinations will seriously affect his career. In that view of the matter, it is mandatory on the part of the 2nd respondent-college to issue notice to the petitioner, indicating the punishment proposed to be imposed on him. Merely because the statements are recorded by the malpractice committee, the plea of the respondents that no further show cause notice need be given, cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings only to the extent of debarring the petitioner from the examinations to be held in April 2011, and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to write the backlog examinations, in the ensuing examinations to be held in April 2011 or at any other point of time. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th February 2011 ajr