Bombay High Court
Ishan Singh S/O. Shri. Upendra Prasad ... vs Datta Meghe Institute Of Higher Edu. And ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:5645-DB
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3072 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Ishan Singh son of Shri Upendra Prasad
Singh Aged about 20 years, Student ID
1102230315 with Jawaharlal Nehru
Medical College.
Permanent resident of 6, Commissariat
Road, PS Hastings, Kolkata 700022.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1) Datta Meghe Institute of Higher
Education & Research, (Deemed to be
University), Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha
- 442107, through its Registrar
Email : registrar@ dmiher.edu.in
2) Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College
Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha - 442004,
Through its Dean
Email:
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Adv. a/b Mr. V.V. Joshi, Adv. for the Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 18/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.)
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
1. Heard.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a student of the
respondent No.2 - College, pursuing IInd year medical course,
praying for quashing and setting aside impugned final punishment
order dated 10.06.2025, issued by the respondent No.2, suspending
him for three months excluding the period he had already
undergone for one month vide order dated 20.02.2025.
4. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that on a
complaint against the petitioner relating to sexual harassment, he
was initially suspended until further order with immediate effect
vide order dated 20.02.2025 which was revoked on 24.03.2025.
Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him on 27.05.2025
calling explanation from him why a major punishment/penalty-
suspension for the period of three months be not imposed.
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
5. Thereupon, he sought material and documents on which
the reliance had been placed to propose final action vide a report
submitted by the Committee.
6. The said material which was in the form of audio clips
was provided to the petitioner on 09.06.2025. By the E-mail dated
09.06.2025, the petitioner was granted time till 11.06.2025 to
submit his explanation to the show cause notice.
7. However, without waiting till 11.06.2025, which was the
last date for submission of explanation by the petitioner, the
impugned order came to be issued on 10.06.2025, suspending the
petitioner for three months.
8. Today, a request is made to take this matter on board and
hear in the afternoon, in view of urgency i.e. from tomorrow, the
preliminary examination is going to commence. Accordingly, the
matter is taken in the afternoon.
9. Since the advance notice was served upon to respondents,
Shri Naik, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of
respondents.
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
10. While opposing the interim prayer made by the
petitioner to allow him into the preliminary examination, he
submits that, even if the period of earlier suspension is ignored and
calculated, the petitioner does not fulfill the pre-condition of having
required attendance for appearing in the examination. He,
therefore, submits that, even if the interim order is passed, the
petitioner will not be permitted to appear in the examination on the
ground of required attendance.
11. Mr Naik, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out the
various correspondence made with the mother of the petitioner
since January, 2025 till May, 2025, informing about the less
attendance of the petitioner.
12. There is also a communication informing that as per the
regulations prescribed by the National Medical Commission and
Academic Policies of the Institution, minimum attendance of 75%
in Theory and 80% in Practical/Clinic sessions is mandatory to be
eligible to appear for university examinations. It is further informed
that as per the record, the petitioner's attendance has fallen short of
the required minimum and unless satisfactory improvement is
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
observed, he may face detention and be ineligible to appear for
upcoming university examinations. This communication is dated
14.06.2025.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon,
requested the Court to take this matter after some time so as to
enable him to take instructions from the parents of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the matter was taken after some time.
14. In the meantime, the leaned counsel for the petitioner
took instructions and made a statement that, would take recourse as
available to file reply to the communication informing about the
less attendance of the petitioner and to satisfy the college about
fulfillment of requisite attendance.
15. The gist of the above referred discussion is that prima
facie, at this stage, the petitioner is not eligible to appear for the
examination and therefore, there is no reason to consider his request
to grant ad-interim relief to allow him to appear in the preliminary
examination scheduled to be held from tomorrow.
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
16. In the above referred backdrop and having satisfied that
the respondents without waiting to end the time period given till
11.06.2025, to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause
notice, passed the impugned order on 10.06.2025, it is evident that
the respondents failed to follow the principles of natural justice. For
this reason only the impugned order vitiates and accordingly, the
same needs to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition in terms of prayer clause (A).
17. At this juncture, on a query about the further course, the
respondents intended to follow in the present matter, Shri Naik,
learned Senior Advocate fairly states that the respondents would
give further time till 05.00 p.m. 25.06.2025 to the petitioner to
submit his explanation and thereafter, the respondents will take final
decision in the matter.
18. Mr Bhutada, learned counsel for the petitioner shows
satisfaction about the time given for such extention. Accordingly, we
pass the following order:-
2.wp.3072.25 JUDG.odt
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 10.06.2025 issued by the
respondent No.2, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation to
the show cause notice as per the time period given by the
respondents i.e. by 05.00 pm. of 25.06.2025.
Rule accordingly.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
