The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that failure to serve a charge sheet disclosing charges with material particulars constitutes a grave violation of principles of natural justice.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Prakhar Nagar.
The petitioner has assailed the punishment of rustication imposed by the respondents-University for a period of six months by order dated 25.02.2020, and the order dated 16.03.2020 in appeal reducing the punishment of rustication for a period of three months.
The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of fresh marks-sheet reflecting the evaluation of the petitioner’s performance out of 100 marks, and to delete the endorsement marks “Reappearance September 2020” and to remove the B Cap on the marks secured by the petitioner.
Further, the prayer is that the marks-sheet should not reference the rustication of the petitioner.
The petitioner is a student of B.Tech (CSE) in the respondent-University. The petitioner was charged by the university for various acts of indiscipline.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner are vague and of a general nature.The impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no material in the record to justify the imposition of the aforesaid punishment. The punishment is disproportionate.
Per contra, Rahul Chaudhary, counsel for the respondents-University submitted that the charges constitute a grave act of indiscipline. An inquiry was duly conducted into the matter. The punishment is proportionate and has been imposed with a view to deter others from wrong doings. The charges are supported by material in the record.
The Court noted that,
The petitioner has specifically asserted that the petitioner was never served a charge-sheet containing a statement of charges along with the adverse material which was relied upon by the respondents-authorities while passing the impugned order.
The specific pleadings in the petition in this regard are not traversed by the respondents in their counter affidavits. Failure to serve a charge-sheet disclosing charges with material particulars upon the petitioner disabled him from tendering an effective defence of his case. The omission constitutes a grave violation of principles of natural justice. The vague nature of the charges vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
The second faultline in the impugned orders is that they were passed on the foot of an ex parte enquiry. The pleadings in the writ petition in regard to the enquiry being conducted in violation of principles of natural justice too have not been traversed in the counter affidavit. The enquiry against the petitioner which culminated in the impugned orders was passed by adopting a procedure not known to law.
Even if the aforesaid documents are taken at face value, the pleadings of the respondents-university do not disclose that the said documents were served upon the petitioner or that the petitioner was noticed on the aforesaid adverse material at any point in time. The said adverse material including the report appended to the petition became the basis of punitive action against the petitioner. The prejudice caused to the petitioner by the said procedure followed by the respondents is beyond recall.
The submission that the enquiry report too was not served upon the petitioner precluding him from refuting the same shall now be considered. The counter affidavit baldly asserts that the said enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with the suspension order. There is no proof of service upon the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, the Court has perused the report. The said report merely references some students who had mentioned the name of the petitioner. It is noteworthy that the enquiry report does not discuss the nature of the statements and the manner in which they indicted the petitioner. Indictment of the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report is perverse.
In this wake in the absence of such consideration the enquiry report is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and non application of mind.
The impugned orders of punishment passed on the foot of the said enquiry report are consequently perverse and illegal.
The Court is informed that the University is implementing the guidelines of UGC dated 13.04.2023. The University is developing a comprehensive reform and self-development program to deal with such matters in compliance with UGC guidelines dated 13.04.2023.
The Court further noted that,
The petitioner passed the B.Tech course in the year 2020. The marks-sheet issued to him evaluated his performance out of 70 marks instead of 100 marks for all other students while applying for the B Cap. Secondly the mark-sheet also references the rustication of the petitioner.
The said action visits the petitioner with enduring penal consequences and will blight his future no end. The petitioner had undergone the punishment of rustication. There was no occasion to disable him perpetually by making the assailed endorsements in the marks-sheet and marking him on 70 marks instead of 100 while applying B Cap formulae.
The petitioner stated that the petitioner is a young adult person with a bright future. The university authorities failed to leave the punitive action with a reformative programme which would have enabled the petitioner to turn a new leaf and make amends for his errors if any.
Purely punitive action was taken by the University against the petitioner, to the exclusion of opportunities to reform his conduct, explore possibilities of excellence and redeem his reputation. In matters pertaining to errant behaviour by students such approach may make the action vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of disproportionality.The punishment is disproportionate and is liable to be set aside on this count as well.
The order dated 25.02.2020 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 16.03.2020 rusticating for various periods are arbitrary and illegal. The impugned orders dated 25.02.2020 and 16.03.2020 are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“In this wake, the application of the B Cap is unsustainable in law and is set aside.
The respondent-university is directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner treating him as a regular student. The fresh mark sheet shall evaluate the applicant out of the 100 marks. The respondent-University shall remove the B cap and shall also refrain from making any reference to the disciplinary action against the petitioner and delete the endorsement “reappearance in September, 2020″ in the fresh mark-sheet. The disciplinary action against the petitioner shall not be disclosed by the university to any other authority”, the Court ordered.