1. The petitioner who was at the relevant time the Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank having its Branch Office at Dharwad has called in question the correctness of the order passed by the 3rd respondent / Vice - Chancellor of the 1st respondent - University withdrawing the degree conferred on him by the 1st respondent / University on the ground that he had committed fraud which disentitled him to hold the degree conferred on him. The relevant provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short the Act) under which action was taken against the petitioner read as under :
"60. Withdrawal of Degree or Diploma(1) The Senate may on the recommendation of the Syndicate withdraw any distinction, degree, diploma or privilege conferred on or granted to any person by a resolution passed by a majority of the total membership of the Senate and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the members of the Senate present and voting at the meeting ; if such person has been found convicted by a Court of law for an offence which, in the opinion of the Senate, involves moral turpitude or if he has been guilty of gross misconduct.
(2) No action under this section shall be taken against any person unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken.
(3) A copy of the resolution passed by the Senate shall be immediately sent to the person concerned.
(4) Any person aggrieved by the decision taken by the Senate may appeal to the Chancellor through the State Government within thirty days from the date of receipt of such resolution.
(5) The decision of the Chancellor on such appeal shall be final."
It is common ground that action was taken against the petitioner under the second ground available for the University to withdraw the degree conferred on the petitioner, i.e., if he is guilty of gross misconduct. Such withdrawal of the degree should be preceded by a show cause notice to the person concerned and he must be given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.

2. It transpires that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as the Assistant Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Dharwad. But all the same he sought admission to Udupi Law College and was admitted as a student in that Law College. The duration of the course for obtaining Law Degree in that college which was affiliated to the Mysore University is 3 years and, therefore, the petitioner was expected to put in the requisite attendance during the aforesaid period before he could take the University examinations prescribed for the Law degree course. The petitioner did appear for all the 3 examinations held during the years 1971 to 1974 and he obtained the LL. B. degree of Mysore University in the convocation held after the academic year 1974-75. However, sometime in the year 1976, one S.G. Dambal claiming to be a person interested in the purity of academic standards to be maintained by the University gave a complaint to the Vice - Chancellor, i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, bringing to the notice of the Vice - chancellor the alleged illegalities practised by the petitioner in obtaining the law degree and he requested the Vice Chancellor to take suitable action against the petitioner. He had stated in the complaint that the petitioner was working as the Assistant Manager in the Syndicate Bank for the last 5 years. But, while doing so, he kept terms as a regular student of Udupi Law College which is at a distance of 320 km. from Dharwad for a period of 3 years, that he appeared for the final year Law examination in April 1974 and had successfully completed the examination and he was conferred with the degree by the University, that a minimum of 70% of physical attendance nor the classes was required to admit a student for any examination; that the petitioner being an Assistant Manager in the Syndicate Bank, Dharwad, which was located at a distance of 320 k.m. from Udupi, it was physically impossible for