In this case, it is not in dispute that neither the Disciplinary Committee nor the Registrar, who had passed the impugned order had given notice or opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. There are Standing Orders framed by the University to deal with the cases of malpractice. Clause 18 of the Standing Orders provides for an opportunity before taking any action against any candidate on the ground of malpractice. Though the respondents have relied on the letter, which is alleged to have been given by the petitioner, but it cannot be a substitute for the opportunity, which is contemplated in the Standing Orders. It is also the case of the petitioners that the matter found written on the backside of the hallticket is not related to the examination of that day. In any event, the punishment awarded against the petitioner is contrary to the Standing Orders having regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is to be noted that, for the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the punishment is contemplated under Clause 5 of the Standing Order, but, the respondents have imposed punishment as provided under Clause I of the Standing Order. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 25-3-2005 in Writ Appeal Nos. 651 and 643 of 2005 observed as follows:
