( 1 ) QUESTIONS of some importance in the field of admi- nistrative law arise in this appeal in the context of the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by a University over a student who is alleged to have misconducted himself at an examination. The question of the ambit of the power of the Court exercising writ jurisdiction to examine the validity of the findings of fact upon which the ultimate decision recorded by a disciplinary authority rests has been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions One of the rules which is well-established is that to find facts on no evidence is to err in law and that such an error attracts judicial review. What is meant however by no evidence ? Does it mean total dearth of evidence or lack of evidence reasonably capable of support- ing the findings ? This is principal question which directly falls for consideration herein. The subsidiary question is as to when can the quantum of penalty which is within the exclusive domain of the discipli- nary authority be reviewed in writ jurisdiction. These questions require examination in the context of the fact situation set out hereunder.

( 2 ) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) who was a student of the M. T. B. Arts College Surat appeared at the First Year B. A. Examination held by the South Gujarat University (hereinafter referred to as the University or the respondent-University) in the month of March 1979 His roll number for the said examination was 1993 The result of the said examination was declared sometime in the month of June 1979. However the result of the petitioner was not declared and it was withheld by the University.

( 3 ) BY a notice dated 21/06/1979 the petitioner was called upon to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for having appeared in the paper of English at the Pre-University Arts. Examination held in April 1979 in place of the candidate bearing roll No. 993 of the Surat Center.

( 4 ) THE petitioner showed cause by his reply dated 2/07/1979 His case was one of a total denial. He asserted that the allegation levelled against him was totally false and baseless. He stated that he did not know the candidate bearing roll No. 993 and that in fact at the material time he was out of station.

( 5 ) BY a communication dated Aug 20/08/1979 the petitioner was informed that although he bad denied the allegation on the basis of the evidence in its possession the University had reasons to believe that he was guilty of the alleged misconduct. The petitioner was called upon to appear on 31/08/1979 at 1-30 P. M. before the Achar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) constituted by the respon- dent-University and to submit his defence orally or in writing and to place before the Committee the evidence in support of such defence.

( 6 ) THE petitioner appeared before the Committee as required. The Committee confronted the petitioner with the answer book in the sub- ject of English of the candidate bearing roll No. 993 at the Pre-Univer- sity Arts Examination and his own answer book in the subject of English at the First Year B. A. Examination and he was pointed out certain similarities in the hand-writings in both the answer books and he was asked to offer his explanation as regards the said circumstance. The petitioner was unable to offer any explanation. The petitioner was also questioned whether he knew the candidate having roll No. 993 at the Pre-University Art Examination but he denied any acquaintance with the said candidate. The petitioner stated that he had not personated the said candidate and he reiterated that at the material time he was in Aligadh where he had gone to see his grandmother who was operated upon.

( 7 ) IT appears that earlier on the same day the Committee had also independently questioned the candidate bearing roll No. 993 against whom separate proceedings of disciplinary nature were initiated. When confronted with what purported to he his answ