Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs The University Of Petroleum And Energy on 26 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1371
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.372 of 2026
26th February, 2026
Krish Panwar ...........Petitioner
Versus
The University of Petroleum and Energy
Studies Dehradun and others ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure 5) and 12.2.2026 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent University.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his studies in the BBA (Analytics & Big Data) course and allow him to attend classes and appear in examination.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner, a IVth Semester B.B.A. (Analytics & Big Data) student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun (Batch 2024-2027), has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned suspension order dated 27.03.2025 and the subsequent expulsion order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the respondent University. The action against the petitioner stems from FIR No. 58 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 lodged at Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Dehradun, alleging offences under Sections 109, 191(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNS, 2023, regarding an 1 2026:UHC:1371 alleged incident of firing during the night of 24/25.03.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated due to prior enmity and the petitioner was not present in Dehradun on the date of the alleged incident as he was on sanctioned leave from 24.03.2025 to 01.04.2025, and has already been granted stay of arrest by this Court in WPCRL No.1131 of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025. Despite the pendency of investigation and the fact that no charge sheet has been filed, the University initiated disciplinary proceedings under the UPES Regulation Governing Maintenance of Discipline among Students, 2009, and without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, first placed the petitioner under suspension and thereafter imposed the extreme penalty of expulsion by invoking Clause 5(c)(xviii) relating to possession or use of weapons in campus or residential premises.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said clause is inapplicable as no weapon was recovered from him and the alleged incident did not occur within the University or hostel premises; further, mere registration of an FIR does not establish guilt in absence of conviction. It is asserted that the impugned orders are arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, disproportionate, and infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the disciplinary action has been taken mechanically on unsubstantiated allegations, jeopardizing the petitioner's academic career and future prospects while the criminal investigation is still pending.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-University submits that the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner, being a student of 2 2026:UHC:1371 University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, is governed by the UPES Regulation Governing Maintenance of Discipline among Students, 2009. It is contended that following the registration of FIR No.58 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 alleging serious offences involving use of firearms, the University, considering the gravity of the allegations and their impact on campus safety and institutional discipline, placed the petitioner under suspension as an interim measure and thereafter conducted an independent disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the Regulations. Upon evaluation of the material on record, the Discipline Committee found the petitioner guilty under Clause 5(c)(xviii), holding that the expression relating to residential premises includes private accommodations of students and that recovery of a weapon is not essential for establishing misconduct. It is further submitted that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities; hence, pendency of investigation, non-filing of charge sheet, or grant of stay of arrest does not bar institutional action. The respondents assert that due opportunity of hearing was provided, principles of natural justice were complied with, and the punishment of expulsion dated 12.02.2026 was imposed after due application of mind, being proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The impugned orders are stated to be lawful, reasoned, and within the University's disciplinary jurisdiction, not warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at bar that the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit. He insisted upon the Court to decide the matter finally.
32026:UHC:1371
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, being governed by the disciplinary Regulations of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, was validly subjected to disciplinary proceedings following serious allegations in the FIR. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Regulations, principles of natural justice were complied with, and misconduct was established under Clause 5(c)(xviii). The Court observes that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and can proceed on the standard of preponderance of probabilities; hence, pendency of investigation or stay of arrest does not bar institutional action. There is subjective satisfaction of the Disciplinary Committee which warrants no interference. Finding no illegality, arbitrariness, procedural lapse, or disproportionate punishment, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.
8. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.02.2026 SK 4