JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment & final order dated 24.5.2007 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 22 of 2007. The learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA by the following order:

"Heard. For the reasons that will follow separately, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-"

2. Subsequently, the reasons were given by the learned Division Bench which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed in this appeal.

3. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The fact-s of the case are that respondent Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was admitted to Dr. Ambedekar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh in the academic session 2002-03 to undergo a degree course in Hospitality and Hotel Administration. He cleared all the subjects in the first and second year. Thereafter he appeared in the third and final year of the examination for the academic year 2004-05. On 19.4.2005 while he was writing his answer script in the subject of `Front Office Management a slip was found in his possession which contained material relevant to the examination. The invigilation staff took the slip into their possession and a fresh answer sheet was issued to the respondent.

5. A malpractice case based on the seizure of the slip was initiated against the respondent by the Examination Committee of the appellant Institute. In his statement dated 19.4.2005 before the inquiry the respondent admitted that the slip which was seized from his possession was in his own handwriting. Thus, he confessed the charge against him. However, he pleaded that he was extremely sorry for the misdeed and would not repeat it again.

6. By its order dated 7.7.2005 the Institute disqualified the respondent for one academic session as per Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rule of the Institute. The respondent was permitted to take readmission for the academic session 2006-07 in the same class and he had to appear in the annual examination in 2007.

7. At this stage it may be relevant to quote some of the relevant rules, being the Examination Rules of the National Council for Hotel management and Catering Technology, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Examination Rules).

8. Rule 8.1 of the said Rules defines `malpractice in an examination. Sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 8.1 defines the following as one of the malpractices in the examination:

"Candidate who is found in possession of any notebook (s) or notes or chits or any other unauthorized material concerning the subject pertaining to the examination paper."

The respondent in our opinion is clearly guilty of malpractice as defined in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8.1 of the Examination Rules.

9. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had actually used the said slip of paper found in his possession.

In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the slip of paper found in the possession of the examinee pertained to the examination paper in question. If it does, then it is a malpractice. In this particular case, the said slip of paper was brought into the examination hall and was found to be in the possession of the examinee while the examination was going on. Whether the respondent actually used that slip or not is irrelevant. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in C.B.S.E. vs. Vineeta Mahajan & another (1994) 1 SCC 6. Moreover, this is also borne out by sub rule (1) of the Examination Rules, quoted above.

10. In the present case there is no doubt that the slip of paper contained material pertaining to the examination in question. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Shri Lalit Bhasin that the respondent was