Vishal Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and another

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioner in-person would submit that he was never given any show cause notice prior to debarring him from taking admission in L.L.B. Third Semester or in any other course of the University. He would submit that he may be permitted to appear in the Fourth Semester Examination.

4. In fact, this matter was listed yesterday when arguments were heard. Thereafter, this Court realized that some 2 more assistance is required in the matter. The Court, therefore, requested Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate to assist the Court, to which, he agreed.

5. Mr. Harshit Sanwal submits that the Proctorial Board had not recommended that the petitioner be debarred from taking admission in LLB Third Semester, instead it had recommended that the entry of the petitioner be prohibited in the University and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him. He further submits that whenever such an action is contemplated, which is quasi-judicial in nature, the authority concerned need to issue a show cause notice to the person concern. But, in the instant case, it is submitted that neither the Proctorial Board Report dated

24.09.2024 was given to the petitioner nor was he ever given any notice so as to explain his conduct and straightway the impugned office order has been issued, which is against the law. He would submit that even otherwise the respondent no.2, the Director of the University under the Central University Act, 2009 (“the Act”) is not empowered to pass an order of the expulsion. Such powers are vested in the Vice Chancellor under Clause 28(4) of the Statute of the University, which is in the Second Schedule to the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the Students Union Elections of 2024-25, on 24.09.2024, the indiscipline and indecent conduct of the petitioner was noticed; he obstructed the election process; senior faculty/member of the Proctorial Board counselled him. Thereafter, police was called and FIR was lodged. In such circumstances, show cause notice is not required. He would also raise the following submissions:- 3 (i) Under Clause 28(5) of the Second Schedule of the Act, the Principal of the University has all such discretionary powers over the students in their respective colleges as may be necessary for the proper conduct of such College. It includes debarring the students from taking admission in any of the courses. (ii) The Proctorial Board had recommended that the admission of the petitioner be restrained and the disciplinary proceedings may be done.

7. A student has been debarred from taking admission in the ongoing professional course by the impugned order. Not only this, he has been debarred from taking admission in any other course in the University. According to the impugned order dated

30.09.2024 it was done, based on the Proctorial Board recommendations, which is Annexure No.3 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. According to Proctorial Board Minutes, the entry of the petitioner in the premises of the University was recommended to be completely restrained and further, disciplinary proceedings were recommended. This recommendation cannot be read as recommending that the petitioner may not be permitted to take admission in any course in the University. It speaks of entry into the premises of the University and thereafter, a disciplinary proceedings, but it has not so done.

8. The Proctorial Board Meeting Minutes dated

24.09.2024 though records that the petitioner was consoled when he created obstructions and had indiscipline behavior; thereafter, FIR was lodged. This is one part of the story. But, as stated, the Proctorial Board had Recommendation for disciplinary proceedings. 4 They had not taken any decision. The journey of a student’s career was obstructed by the impugned order and he was not given a show cause notice. Only on this sole ground the impugned order deserves to be set aside. There are other reasons, as well.

9. Clause 28 of the Second Scheduled i.e. a Statute of the Act is with regard to maintaining discipline. It reads as follows:- 28(1)(4)(5) “28. (1) All powers relating to the maintenance of discipline and disciplinary action in relation to the students of the University shall vest in the Vice-Chancellor. (2) …………………………………………………………………………….. (4) Without prejudice to the generality of his powers relating to the maintenance of discipline and taking such action, as may seem to him appropriate for the maintenance of discipline, the Vice Chancellor may, in exercise of such powers, by order, direct that any student or students be expelled or rusticated, for a specified period, or be not admitted to a course or courses of study in a College, Institution or Department or a School of the University for a stated period, or be punished with fine for an amount to be specified in the order, or be debarred from taking an examination or examinations conducted by the University, College, Institution or Department or a School for one or more years, or that the results of the student or students concerned in the examination or examinations in which he or they have appeared be withheld or cancelled. (5) The Principals of Colleges, Institutions, Deans of Schools of Studies and Heads of teaching Departments in the University shall have the authority to exercise all such disciplinary powers over the students in their respective Colleges, Institutions, Schools and teaching Departments in the University, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of such Colleges, Institutions, Schools and teaching Departments.”

10. A bare reading of the 28(4) reveals that the power of expulsion and rustication for a specified period, or be not admitted to a course or courses of study in a College, Institution or 5 Department or a School of the University for a stated period has been vested with the Vice Chancellor.

11. Clause 28(5) of the Second Schedule i.e. a statute of the Act vest the Principal with all such disciplinary powers over the students in their respective college as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the College. But, it does not specifically speak of expulsion or rustication for any specify period or directions that the students may not be admitted to study in a course or courses in the College. As stated, such powers are vested in the Vice Chancellor, for that reason also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

12. The impugned office order dated 30.09.2024 is set aside.

13. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sanjay (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

02.05.2025