The main legal point established in the judgment is that in domestic enquiries, the petitioner is not entitled to assistance of counsel as a matter of right, and the punishment of detention ordered by the college was authorized by the University Ordinances and the orders of the court, and therefore, was not unjustified or illegal.

1. This is the third round of the writ proceedings in respect of certain actions taken against the petitioner, a student of the Government Victoria College, Palghat, by its Principal and the Members of the College Council. The first of these series was O. P. No. 1683 of 1966 filed by the petitioner to quash the order of detention passed on him by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner had resorted to mal¬practice during the annual examination held for the First Year B. Sc. Course in April 1966. The writ petition was dismissed in the first instance by a learned judge of this Court. Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966 against the said decision was allowed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice (vide 1967 KLT. 97). In allowing the appeal and quashing the order of detention it was made clear that fresh steps against the petitioner in accordance with law were not barred, and that in the mean time lest the petitioner should lose the benefit of one year, it was imperative that he be permitted to attend the 2nd year Degree Course and continue his studies. It was also made clear that such attendance will not confer any right on the petitioner in case it is found that he is guilty and liable to the punishment.

2. The second round of proceedings opened with a fresh charge issued by the Principal against the petitioner, that he had not secured the requisite marks for promotion to the Second Year B. Sc. from the First Year Course and was liable to be detained on that account. This was followed by a fresh order of detention with a concession to sit for another examination on a date fixed. As the petitioner did not sit for the examination he was ordered to be expelled. This order of expulsion was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No: 4514 of 1966. Before my learned brother Govindan Nair J. who heard the writ petition, the Principal agreed to withdraw the proceedings which resulted in the detention of the petitioner and his subsequent expulsion. It was therefore directed that these proceedings will be ignored. The question as to whether proceedings should be commenced against the petitioner in respect of the charge of mal-practice which was the subject-matter of Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966, (and which by now had crystallised into insertion of previously prepared answer papers in the Inorganic Chemistry answer book) was debated in the judgment thus:

["As to whether the proceedings commenced by the issue of the charge sheet Ext. P2 must be pursued is a matter for the respondent to decide. If he decides to conduct an enquiry the enquiry will be conducted by Shri P. Gopalan Nair, Professor of Malayalam as agreed to by either side. It is also agreed that h; is a person who had nothing to do with this matter and is in no way incompetent to conduct the enquiry. If such an enquiry is to be held, it will be held on the 25th January 1967, commencing at 10 A. M. in the office of Shri P. Gopalan Nair. The information regarding any material which would be relied on and copies of records, if any, will be given to the petitioner on or before the 20ih of this month. A list of the witnesses to be examined will also be furnished. Such of the documents, copies of which cannot be furnished must be made available for inspection at the office of the enquiry officer Shri P. Gopalan Nair, on Monday the 23rd between hours that will be notified by Shri P. Gopalan Nair. The inspection to take place in the presence of Shri P. Gopalan Nair.

After the enquiry a report will be drawn up by Shri P. Gopalan Nair entering his findings on the charge and this will be sent to the Principal on or before the 26th January. The College Council will consider this report and pass appropriate orders on or before the 28th of this month. If the petitioner is found not guilty, he will be allowed to continue his studies from the 30th January in the Second Year B. Se, In that event necessary exemption condoning lack of attendance, if any, arising o