Dinakaran, C.J.

Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7129/2008 wherein he has challenged the order dated 11.4.2008 of the 1st respondent- University by which penalty of denial of benefit of performance of the Examinations conducted during December, 2007 to January 2008 and debarring the petitioner from appearing for any examination till December 2008/ January, 2009 and other penalties were imposed.

2.1) The facts of the case in brief are- that the appellant is a student studying in B.E- Information Technology in the respondent-college. While he was answering the I" semester examination in Computer Concepts and C-Programming (Practical), he was found to be in possession of a mobile phone containing certain snaps relating to the subject. An enquiry was initiated into the malpractice committed by the Appellant-writ petitioner during the examination and a Committee was constituted to go into the allegation levelled against the appellant. The Committee recorded the statement of the appellant as per Annexure-R.2 which reads thus:

" I was carrying mobile for communication purpose as my grandpa was sick and he wanted a contact. I had no intention of copying from the program snaps as they were solely for `revision' purpose. I apologise for my mistake. The Committee found me carrying a phone but did not find me copying from the programs in the cell. I apologise for my mistake of carrying a cell phone.

sd/-Signature of the candidate"

2.2) The Committee after recording the statement of the appellant-writ petitioner, recommended as follows:

" The candidate had brought the mobile which contains 43 snaps and the mobile was in on condition during the exams. On verification it is found that all the snaps are having programs and connected details of the subject. Comp. Concepts of `C' programming. Hence the candidate deserves the punishments of debarring him from three exams and a penalty of Rs.1000/-.

2.3) The 1St respondent- University, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee and the admission of the appellant himself that he was in possession of the mobile phone at the time when he was answering the paper, which was prohibited, held that the said admission of the appellant itself was sufficient to hold him guilty of the malpractice. Thus holding, the University passed an order dated 11.4.2008 imposing the following penalties:-

“(i) Denial of benefit of performance of the Examinations conducted during Dec.2007/Jan.2008 (including arrear examinations);

(ii) Debarred from appearing for May/June/July 2008 and Dec.2008/ Jan 2009 Examinations (including arrear subject);

(iii) Rejection of semester results, Re-admission, change of college and change of course are not permitted during the penalty period;

(iv) Not permitted to attend the term of higher semester till the completion of penalty period; and

(v) penalty of Rs.1000/-."

However the petitioner was permitted to appear for the examinations to be conducted during May/June/July 2009 and onwards.

2.4) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2008 of the 1st respondent imposing penalty, the appellant preferred writ petition No.7129/2008.

3) The learned single Judge in the course of the order, observed that the findings recorded by the Committee do not bear the signature of the person who has recorded such findings and the seal or designation of the person who recovered the mobile and that there is no proceeding or order passed by the Committee recording the reasons for its conclusion about the involvement of the appellant-writ petitioner in the malpractice. But, however, based on the admission of the writ petitioner himself that he was in possession of the mobile phone at the time when he was answering the paper, partly allowed the writ petition and modified the penalty imposed by the 1st respondent and the operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.6.2008 reads thus:

" In the result and for the foregoing, while holding that the pe