The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice, provide adequate opportunity of hearing, and ensure the presence of evidence before passing orders related to unfair means in examinations.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - The petitioner took admission in respondent No. 3 - Institute in B.Tech. (Computer Science and Engineering) during the academic Session 2018- 19. He successfully completed the first semester and took the examination in November 2018. The second semester examination was held in May 2019 and on 24.05.2019 the petitioner was taking the physics examination of second semester. The Supervisor of the row of the petitioner found him using unfair means and, thus, a form for reporting cases of use of unfair means dated 24.05.2019 was filled up. The unfair means being used mentioned therein is that 'He has smart watch on his hand, he was continuously cheating, the whole book was captured by that smart watch'. The same was endorsed by the Centre Superintendent and statement of the petitioner was recorded as 'I am guilty for my actions. I admit my mistake.' The answer sheet was confiscated and the petitioner was asked to appear for a hearing before the Unfair Means Committee on 12.06.2019. The Committee conveyed its decision vide communication dated 08.07.2019 which was to disqualify the petitioner from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of two semesters. The petitioner challenged this order by way of appeal and the hearing was held on 13.09.2019. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2019. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 31824 of 2019. The same was allowed and order dated 25.09.2019 was set aside on the technical ground that it had been passed by an authority not competent to decide the appeal. The petitioner then approached the competent authority vide representation dated 26.11.2019 and enclosed therewith the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the High Court. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the same day vide order of even date.

2. Meanwhile, pursuant to a demand made by one Vikas (Clerk of the University) the petitioner had deposited the charger of his Apple watch on 28.08.2019. On 17.09.2019, respondent No. 3 - College issued an office circular that the name of the petitioner had been struck off from the rolls of the Institute. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. In paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the Supervisor suspected that the petitioner was using unfair means and she checked his pockets and table. Finding nothing incriminating, she asked the petitioner to remove his watch to see if something was concealed under the strap. The watch was removed and nothing was found and thereafter she told the petitioner that possession of an Apple watch in itself was an offence and, thus, the answer sheet of the petitioner was taken away. This resulted in an argument and on the asking of the Superintendent, the petitioner submitted an apology for having argued with the Supervisor. He was not using unfair means and that he has been punished on the basis of false allegations. In para 12 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the material relied upon in support of the charge sheet was never supplied to the petitioner and adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to him.

4. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent-University in which the allegations of false implication have been denied. It has been averred that the petitioner was found wearing an Apple watch and using unfair means and the full text book was available in the watch through cloud connectivity. It has further been averred that the petitioner admitted his mistake by way of his statement dated 24.05.2019. Regarding supply of material relied upon by the Unfair Means Committee, it has been stated that the same was supplied on 21.10.2019, when information was sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Regarding order passed in appeal, it