Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the expulsion of a student from the Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, finding that it violated the principle of double jeopardy. The student had faced multiple disciplinary actions, including fines and expulsion from the hostel and program. The High Court ruled that the expulsion was based on prior punishments and lacked proper authority, as it was imposed by an unauthorized committee. It also criticized the flawed appeal process, where the petitioner was denied a personal hearing and reasoned order.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a student in the five-year integrated LL.B. course at the Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak (2023-2028 batch), faced multiple disciplinary actions. The first penalty, imposed on 07.05.2024, involved expulsion from the hostel and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for unspecified misconduct. A second penalty followed on 21.05.2024 for attendance malpractice, imposing another fine of Rs. 10,000 and a warning of stricter actions in case of future violations. On 11.06.2024, the petitioner was expelled from the program after allegedly using the hostel despite being prohibited from doing so. The petitioner appealed this expulsion, explaining that due to a painful burn injury, he had no choice but to stay in the hostel for health and safety reasons. His appeal was rejected twice, and after a mercy appeal, the punishment was reduced to repeating the year with full fee payment. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the disciplinary orders and the decision of the appellate authority.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the multiple punishments imposed on him, including expulsion, were unjust and amounted to double jeopardy, as they were based on prior penalties already enforced. He argued that the expulsion order was issued by an unauthorized committee, as only the Integrated Programme in Law (IPL) Committee has disciplinary authority. Additionally, the petitioner claims his appeal was improperly rejected by the Chairperson of the Hostel & Student Affairs, and the Director, as the appellate authority, made a decision without hearing him and without providing reasons, violating natural justice principles. Therefore, the petitioner sought to have the orders set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent-Institute contended that the petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy is unfounded, as the expulsion order was based on the cumulative effect of prior punishments and does not constitute double jeopardy. Regarding the competence of the Hostel & Student Affairs (HSA) Committee, the respondent asserted that under Clause 8.1 of the Academic Handbook, the HSA has the authority to impose punishment for hostel rule violations, which was the basis for the expulsion. The respondent acknowledged that the Director's decision was made without a hearing but argued that since the punishment was reduced, no hearing was necessary. Therefore, the respondent submitted that the petition should be dismissed.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the imposition of the third punishment, expulsion from the program, amounted to "double jeopardy" because it was based on previous punishments already imposed. The Court held that "once the petitioner was subjected to two orders of punishment, a third punishment order could not have been imposed on the same grounds." The expulsion was deemed to violate the principle against double jeopardy.
The Court noted that the punishment was imposed by the Hostel and Student Affairs (HSA) Committee, which "acted without the authority of law and beyond its competence." The correct authority, according to the Academic Handbook, should have been the Integrated Programme in Law (IPL) Committee.
The Court stated that the appeal process was flawed. "The Chairperson was not competent to pass such an order in the appeal, as he was not the Appellate Authority”. The Director of the Institute improperly treated the appeal as a "mercy appeal" rather than reviewing it as the Appellate Authority. The Court further stated that “It is not understandable as to how the Director considered the appeal to be a mercy appeal whereas there is no provision of mercy appeal and rather the Director was the only authority who ought to have exercised the power as an Appellate Authority”.
The Director also failed to provide a "reasoned order" and did not grant the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing before deciding the appeal. As a result, the Court concluded that both the initial punishment order and the appellate decision were "liable to be set aside."
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the expulsion order, setting aside prior disciplinary actions that violated the institution’s regulations. It directed the respondent-Institute to declare the petitioner’s 3rd Semester result and allow the petitioner to continue studies without repeating the year with full fees.
The Court also gave the petitioner the right to appeal to the Board of Governors for hostel restoration. Additionally, the respondent-Institute was ordered to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000/- in costs within three months. The Board of Governors was granted the authority to hold the responsible officers, including the Director, accountable.
Case Title: Deepam Anand Singh v. Indian Institute of Management Rohtak through Director and others
Citation: Civil Writ Petition No. 18689 of 2024 (O&M)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Priyanka Sud
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vivek Singla
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
