ORDER :

1. Petitioner was a law student pursuing his professional law course in R.V. Bidap Law College at Bidar. According to the respondents, he was caught red handed while copying in the examination held on 04.07.2019 and a malpractice case was registered against him. After enquiry respondent No.2 passed the impugned order at Annexure-D which reads as under:

"This is to inform you that your case has been considered by the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee at its meeting and the following decision is taken by the Committee as per Karnataka State Law University Examination Ordinances-2014.

"After considering the averments made and the written statements submitted by the Junior Supervisor, the Principal and the Squad Members, there is reason to believe that the person in the CCTV footage is Mr. M. Bharath Kumar Reddy. This is further confirmed by the fact that the expert opinion on this MPC Case also reveals that the candidate has in fact copied from the copying material that fell through the window. Further Smt. Sangeeta M. Udbal, who was working as Junior Supervisor in the same hall has submitted a letter which is submitted to the committee by the Principal of the College. In this letter she states that Mr. M. Bharath Kumar Reddy threw the chits outside the window and immediately went out of the examination hall."

Hence, in these circumstances it is recommended that punishment may be imposed as per clause C (5) of Ordinance Governing malpractice by candidates i.e., The Candidate shall be debarred from taking next two available examination (in any semester) in all the papers, besides forfeiting his performance in the examination in which he commits malpractice, by imposing a penalty of Rs.500/-.

Further candidate shall not be permitted to keep terms for the next higher course or pursue other alternative courses till their term of punishment is over."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted is illegal, without authority of law and contrary to "The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by Candidates Appearing in Examination and Officials/Supervisory Staff, Punishment, Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009" and submits that no documents were provided to the petitioner before the commencement of the enquiry and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine any of the witnesses and merely based on the statement of the supervisor and on the basis of the CCTV footage, the impugned order has been passed in stark violation of the basic principle of natural justice and hence the impugned order at Annexure-D and the consequent punishment imposed on the petitioner is illegal and without authority of law is liable to set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has filed a detailed statement of objection contending that a valid and proper enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel had referred to the proceedings of the Mal Practice Committee held on 18.10.2019 and pointed out that the petitioner was issued with prior notice and he actually participated in the proceedings but refused to sign the order sheet and failed to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore the allegations made against the respondents are baseless and contrary to the records maintained by the mal practice committee.

4. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the petitioner having been caught red handed and the material used for malpractice having been recovered in his presence, there is prima facie material to show his misconduct and therefore there is no illegality whatsoever, either in the procedure conducted by the respondent No.2 or in the punishment imposed against him and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considered the submissions and perused the records. The Ordinance Governing Malpractice by candidates appearing in examination and Officials/ Supervisory Staff, Punishment and Procedure under section 48 (1)(d) of