A confession of guilt is sufficient evidence to establish malpractice in an examination and there is no need for any further enquiry.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the decision of our learned brother Sambasivarao, J. , in Writ Petition No. 141 of 1971. The Appellant was one of the candidates at an examination held by the Andhra University for the students who completed the Second year of B. Com. , degree course. On 17/04/1970 when the appellant was answering the question paper in English poetry, the Assistant Superintendent searched his pockets and found a piece of paper on which was written matter relevant to the subject of the examination.

( 2 ) ON being questioned, the appellant admitted the mal-practice and addressed a letter to the Chief Superintendent. In that letter he confessed to having brought a piece of paper relating to English poetry examination, in spite of warnings given by the Assistant Superintendent at the outset. He also accepted the fact that the paper was in his pocket and was picked by the Superintendent on a search made by him. He further prayed for the condonation of the mal-practice and coupled it with the assurance that in future he would not be guilty of mis-behaviour.

( 3 ) THIS letter was forwarded to the University authorities along with the report of the Chief Superintendent and invigilators. The piece of paper found in the pocket of the petitioner was also transmitted to the University. Thereafter, the University decided to cancel the result of the appellant and to debar him from appearing from any examination of the University for a period of two years. The appellants request for a reconsideration of the decision by the University brought forth a negative result. He then moved this Court for issue of a writ to call for the proceedings and to quash the order of the University.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was heard by Sambasiva Rao, J. , who dismissed it holding inter alia that the proceedings of the Andhra University Syndicate are not vitiated by any violation of the principles of natural justice and the instructions given for conducting the examination.

( 5 ) IN this appeal, the contentions urged before our learned brother are repeated by the Counsel for the appellant.

( 6 ) IT is strenuously contended that the determination of the question by the University breaks the rules of natural justice and that the Syndicate of the University ought to have adopted the standards of proof of guilt applicable to criminal trials. In any case, it is urged an opportunity ought to have been accorded to the appellant to urge his defence either in refutation or extenuation of the alleged malpractice.

( 7 ) THE Rule acted upon in criminal trials is that a confession even if satisfactorily proved, need not necessarily be true. Not only may it be made to shield another, but it even, it seems, be made for no better reason than to put an end to police questioning. Confessions may also be induced by suggestions or threats. The proof of guilt in criminal cases eliminates unreliable confessions. We cannot accept as sound the view commended by counsel that (domestic tribunals including academic bodies are bound by the same rules as Courts trying criminal cases in regard to confessions ). There is n authority as cited by him which supports his submission. On the contrary Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) said in Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. v. Baleshwar Prasad. AIR 1966 SC 875, that. "it would not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law. "

( 8 ) THE next aspect is whether the University authorities were bound in the circumstances of the case and in conformity with standards of natural justice, to given an oral hearing to the appellants before taking disciplinary action. The facts already narrated by us show that a peace of paper was found in the pocket of the appellant and that it contained matter which related to the subject. "english Poetry. " He was then writing out his answers to the questions set in the examination on the subject. Th