Delhi High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 24 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on- 16th January, 2018
Date of Pronouncement- 24th January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9951/2017
RAVI KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Parvinder Chauhan,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-
2.
Mr.Ankur Chibbar, Advocate for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, who is a third year student of B.Tech having been
enrolled in the B.Tech. Computer Science course in 2015 in Delhi
Technological University i.e. respondent no.2, has filed the present petition
being aggrieved by an order dated 03.11.2017 vide which he has been
rusticated for the ongoing academic year i.e. 2017-2018 with a further
direction that he has to complete his B.Tech degree in five years. The said
order passed by the Board of Discipline of the respondent no.2/University
also bans the entry of the petitioner in the campus for the said academic year
and states therein that he can enter the campus only with the prior
permission of the Board of Discipline. Vide the impugned order, the
petitioner has also been put on probation during the period of his entire stay
in the University.
2. Before dealing with the facts of the case it may be appropriate to note
that during the pendency of the present petition based on an appeal filed by
the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has, vide his order
dated 13.11.2017, while clarifying that the petitioner‟s rustication would
remain in force from January 2018 to June 2018, permitted him to appear in
the ongoing examinations of the 5th semester, from which he had been
initially barred. As a result thereof, the petitioner who had not been allowed
to appear in the examination held on 06.11.2017 and 09.11.2017, was able to
appear in the examinations held on 15.11.2017, 16.11.2017, 17.11.2017,
24.11.2017, 25.11.2017 and 27.11.2017. For this limited purpose, the
petitioner was also allowed to enter the campus till the date of his last
examination.
3. The facts as emerge from the record are that on 18.09.2017, the
Petitioner while driving his motorbike in the campus was passing through
the faculty residential area when he met with an accident and his motor bike
hit a child named Master Shobit, who is the son of a faculty member
namely, Ms.Sushila Rani. While the petitioner claims that the accident took
place as the child suddenly came out of a van parked on the wrong side of
the road, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the accident took
place because the petitioner was driving rashly at a speed of 70 km/hr as
against the prescribed speed limit of 20 km/hr in the campus. An FIR being
FIR No. 636 P.S. Shahbad Dairy was registered regarding the incident in
which it was stated that the child was taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh
and no eye witness to the incident was present.
4. On 20.09.2017, the mother of the injured child, Ms. Sushila Rani,
made a complaint, regarding the incident to the Vice Chancellor of the R2-
University. On the basis of her complaint disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the Petitioner by respondent No.2 and a notice dated
22.09.2017 was issued by the Chairman of the Board of Discipline directing
the Petitioner to appear before the Board on 25.09.2017. The Petitioner
claims that he received the said notice only on 27.09.2017 but he learnt
about the Board meeting through other sources and appeared before the
board. At the meeting, he apprised the Board members about the incident
and also tendered his apology for the unfortunate accident. On 26.09.2017,
the petitioner was asked to file a questionnaire and submit his written
statement which he did. In the written statement, he admitted about the
incident and while stating that the accident was unintentional and due to
reasons beyond control of anybody, sought pardon.
5. On the next day i.e. 27.09.2017, the petitioner was called to the site of
the accident and certain classifications of the accident and certain
clarifications were taken from him. In his statement at the site, the petitioner
pointed out that his speed at the time of accident was about 30-40 kmph.
6. The Board of Discipline of respondent No.2 passed the impugned
order dated 03.11.2017 rusticating the petitioner from the current academic
year, i.e. 2017-2018 and also banned his entry into the campus during that
period without prior permission of the Board of Discipline. The Petitioner
was, additionally, warned regarding any future misconduct and he along
with his parents was directed to submit an undertaking in person before the
Chairman Board of Discipline to not repeat an act of indiscipline in future.
7. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioner was unable to appear
in the ensuing examinations of the 5th semester, which commenced on
06.11.2017 and in these circumstances, he preferred the present writ
petition. Vide an interim order dated 13.11.2017 this Court, while noticing
the interim prayers made by the petitioner for permission to appear in the
remaining 6 examinations of the 5th semester, directed the Vice Chancellor
to dispose of his pending appeal expeditiously by taking a sympathetic view.
Pursuant to the Court‟s order, the Vice Chancellor passed an order on the
same day modifying the original rustication order dated 03.11.2017 by
permitting the petitioner to appear in the remaining examinations of 5th
semester and specifying therein that his rustication for the current academic
year i.e. 2017-18 shall be from January 1st, 2018 to June 30th 2018.
8. Arguing for the petitioner, Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate
contends that in the facts of the case, the rustication of the petitioner was
wholly unwarranted and the same will leave a permanent scar on his career.
He submits that the respondents have overlooked the basic fact that the
entire incident and injuries to the minor child were the result of an
unfortunate accident, which by no means can be treated as an act of
indiscipline. He submits that even though the ordinance of the University
does not define as to what constitutes misconduct or indiscipline, the actions
which have been specifically prescribed to be acts of indiscipline or
misconduct on the part of a student, clearly shows that involvement in an
accident cannot be treated to be a misconduct or indiscipline on the part of
the student.
9. I deem it appropriate to reproduce Para 4 of the Ordinance in extenso,
on which reliance has been placed by Mr.Nandrajog in support of his plea
that the petitioner‟s involvement in an accident, which was admittedly
unintentional, cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline on his part
warranting his rustication.
"4. Acts of indiscipline and misconduct
(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the power to
maintain and enforce discipline under this ordinance, the
following shall amount to acts of indiscipline or misconduct on
the part of a student of the University:-
(a) Physical assault, or threat to use physical force,
against any member of the teaching or non-
teaching staff of any Department or school of the
University or against any student of the University.
(b) Remaining absent from the class test or any
examination or any other curricular or co-
curricular activity which he/she is expected to
participate in;
(c) Carrying of, use of or threat to use, any weapon;
(d) Misbehavior, using abusive language or cruelty
towards any other student, teacher or any other
employee of the University;
(e) Use of drugs or other intoxicants except those
prescribed by a qualified doctor;
(f) Any violation of the provisions of the Civil Rights
Protection Act, 1976;
(g) Indulging in or encouraging violence or any
conduct which involves moral turpitude;
(h) Any form of gambling;
(i) Violation of the status, dignity and honour of a
student belonging to a scheduled caste or a
schedule tribe;
(j) Discrimination against any student or a member of
staff on grounds of caste, creed, language, place of
origin, social and cultural background or any of
them.
(k) Practicing casteism and untouchability in any form
or inciting any other person to do so;
(l) Any act or gesture, whether verbal physical or
otherwise, derogatory to women;
(m) Consuming tobacco, liquor or smoking;
(n) Any attempt at bribing or corruption of any
manner or description;
(o) Willful destruction of the property of the
University;
(p) Behaving in a rowdy, intemperate or disorderly
manner in the premises of the University or
encouraging or inciting any other person to do so;
(q) Creating discord, ill-will or intolerance among the
students or sectarian or communal grounds or
inciting any other student to do so;
(r) Causing disruption of any manner or description of
the academic functioning of the University system;
(s) Indulging in or encouraging any form of disruptive
activity connected with tests, examinations or any
other activity of the University;
(t) Truancy and unpunctuality.
(2) The Vice Chancellor may amend or add to the list of
malpractices under clause (1)."
According to Mr.Nandrajog, to be treated as a misconduct or an act of
indiscipline, the act should be a willful/intentional action which is
unbecoming of a student. He submits that merely because an FIR had been
registered against the petitioner in respect of an accident, the University
cannot treat it as an act of misconduct or indiscipline. His contention being
that the very fact that if a faculty member were to be involved in a similar
accident, the same would not be treated as a misconduct or act of
indiscipline, is in itself sufficient to show that the unfortunate incident in
which a minor child was involved cannot be treated as misconduct or an act
of indiscipline on part of the petitioner.
10. The next submission of Mr.Nandrajog is that the petitioner has been
victimized only because the child who was unfortunately hurt in the accident
is the son of a faculty member who had, out of vengeance, made a complaint
to the Vice Chancellor . He submits that she had perhaps got agitated with
the behaviour of the wife of one Professor Nand Kumar, who was the local
guardian of the petitioner. While drawing my attention to her complaint
made on 20.09.2017 i.e. two days after the accident, Mr.Nandrajog submits
that it is evident from a bare reading of the complaint that it was made in a
fit of anger. I deem it appropriate to reproduce the portion of the complaint
on which heavy reliance has been placed by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner.
"It is also pertinent to mention here that Prof. Nand Kumar is
local guardian of this student and it is very surprising that wife
of Prof. Nand Kumar was remain present at the time of accident
but the behaviour of Mrs. Nand Kumar was uncivilized and in
continuation of her act she behaved with abusive language with
my mother in law, my husband even though she was aware of
the fact but did not provide any/and of support to my ward in
extension of medical facility and allow to Mr.Ravi Kumar to
flew away for the location of incident."
11. By placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in the case of T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvaraj & Ors. vs.
Principal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, AIR 1997 Kar. 261, and
Akshay Chaudhary & Anr. vs. University of Delhi, (2010) 174 DLT 645,
Mr.Nandrajog contends that the relationship of the Head of the Institution
and the student is that of a parent and child and, therefore, the punishment
imposed on the student should be with the purpose of correcting the fault
and to ensure that any act of the student does not bring disrepute to the
institute. The plea, therefore, is that an unfortunate accident on the road can
by no means be treated as such an act which in any manner impinges on the
discipline in the Institute.
12. The next submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that
while imposing the extreme penalty of rustication on the petitioner, the
respondents have not followed even the basic principles of natural justice.
While referring to the questionnaire which the petitioner was asked to fill as
also the written statement given by him at the site at the asking of member
of Board of Discipline, Mr.Nandrajog contends that the cuttings in the
handwritten answer to the questionnaire as also in his written statement, in
itself show the manner in which proceedings were conducted and he was
pressurized to admit the fault. The relevant portion thereof reads as „hereby
confirm my little involvement' and the cuttings therein clearly show that he
had initially written „hereby confirm, my no involvement' and the phrase „No
involvement‟ was perhaps under duress changed to „little involvement‟. He
submits that admittedly, no show cause notice containing the allegations
against him was issued to the petitioner and he was merely asked to present
himself before the Board of Discipline on 25.09.2017.
13. The last, though one of the foremost submissions of Mr.Nandrajog, is
that the petitioner has already suffered for over two months and, therefore,
he prays that the period of rustication may be modified to the period already
undergone. He submits that the punishment of rustication upto June, 2018 is
grossly disproportionate and this rustication upto June, 2018 will have a
cascading effect on the petitioner‟s career, who is a young bright student
undergoing the coveted course of B.Tech. in Computer Science from a
prestigious university. He submits that though the Vice Chancellor was
expected to take a sympathetic view in the matter but it is evident that he has
instead of reducing the period of rustication, as is sought to be contended by
the learned counsel for respondent No.2, maintained the original rustication
itself by directing that the same would remain in force till 30th June, 2018.
He submits that the initial rustication being for the academic year 2017-18,
would have ended on 30th June, 2018 and, therefore, as a result of the Vice
Chancellor‟s order, there is no change in the period of rustication.
Elaborating further, Mr. Nandrajog submits that the Vice Chancellor‟s order
of rustication also mandates that the petitioner should complete the course in
5 years and in case he fails in any exam afterwards, he will not get his
degree. The plea of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner thus is that
the petitioner‟s entire academic career has been put at stake as he will
virtually lose one entire year of his academic career and will then have to
complete his course in the remaining 4 years.
14. Per contra, Ms.Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.2,
while opposing the petition, contends that in disciplinary matters involving
students, the Courts ought not to interfere as it is the officials dealing with
indisciplined students who are the best judge of how to deal with the student
and handle an atmosphere of indiscipline created by the student for the
smooth running of the institute.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was
driving a motor bike rashly at a speed of 70 km/hr in the residential complex
of the University Campus, where he was not supposed to go and that too
with an expired driving licence, leading to an accident causing grievous
injuries to a school going minor child and therefore, contends that the
respondents were fully justified in imposing the punishment of rustication
on him. She submits that the Board of Discipline of the University had after
giving the petitioner full opportunity to explain his stand both orally and in
writing, come to a conclusion that he was guilty of an act of gross
indiscipline and therefore, keeping in view the nature of his misconduct and
indiscipline and also by considering his previous acts of indiscipline,
imposed the penalty of rustication for the academic session of 2017-18,
which has now been reduced by the Vice Chancellor to only 6 months.
16. Ms.Ahlawat submits that right from the beginning of his admission in
the University the petitioner has been an undisciplined student and,
therefore, deserves no indulgence from this Court. She points out that in
the very first year of his joining the respondent no.2, the petitioner was
involved in fighting among students pursuant whereto the senior students
involved in the incident were given a warning and imposed the fine of
Rs.10,000/. The petitioner and other students of first year were put under
probation for their entire period of stay in DTU with a warning not to repeat
an act of indiscipline in future. She submits that the petitioner‟s parents had
been asked to give an undertaking that he would not repeat the act of
indiscipline in future and he was cautioned that stern action may be taken
against him in case of repetition of any act of indiscipline.
17. She further submits that in January, 2017, the petitioner yet again
indulged in indiscipline and tarnished the image of the institute by
contacting the media and providing them with distorted news without
bringing the issue to the notice of the university and the competent authority
before doing so. This according to Ms.Ahlawat, was a serious act but, since
the petitioner submitted his apology in writing on 01.02.2017, no action was
taken against him except verbally warning him that he should not indulge in
any illegal activities as he was already on probation and was advised to
spend his time on academics. Mrs. Ahlawat submits that in the given facts,
the punishment of rustication is fully justified and the petitioner despite
earlier warnings given to him, has again indulged in an act of gross
indiscipline and, therefore, deserves no sympathy or indulgence from this
Court.
18. Upon hearing the rival contentions raised by the parties, the only issue
which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the involvement
of a student in a motor accident for which an FIR under Sections 279/337
IPC stands registered against him, can be treated as such a gross act of
indiscipline or misconduct so as to warrant the punishment of rustication.
As a corollary thereof, a question would also arise as to whether in the facts
of the present case, can the punishment of rustication be termed as
shockingly disproportionate, as is contended by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner.
19. The admitted facts which emerge from the record show that the
incident which is the genesis of the penalty imposed on the petitioner, was
the collision of a motor bike being driven by him with a minor child
resulting in serious injuries to the child. The respondents have, while
conceding that the accident resulting injuries to the minor child, was an
unintentional act, urged that the accident was a result of rash driving by the
petitioner in the residential campus block of the University, where he had no
reason to go and, therefore, was a clear case of gross indiscipline and
misconduct.
20. Since the petitioner has not challenged the fact that he was driving a
motor bike with an expired driving licence at a speed limit more than the
prescribed speed limit of 20 km/hr in a part of the campus, the only issue
which needs to engage this Court is as to whether the incident even if seen
as an act of indiscipline was a case of such gross indiscipline, that the
penalty imposed on him was commensurate with the misconduct. In other
words, the only question would be as to punishment imposed meted out to
the petitioner is proportionate or whether it can be termed as shockingly
disproportionate.
21. To decide whether the punishment meted out to the petitioner can be
considered as disproportionate or not, one has to necessarily consider the
circumstances in which the incident occurred as also to keep in mind the
nature of relationship between the petitioner, a student and the University.
In my considered opinion, the duty of the Institute is to nurture its students,
who join the Institute as young teenagers at the age of 17-18 years and every
attempt must be made to help them blossom as responsible adults. No
doubt, this responsibility would give the power and right to discipline them
but the moot question would be whether, under the garb of discipline, such a
penalty be meted out to them so as to harm their future, even when the
Institute is conscious of the fact that the act of the student, though faulty,
was unintentional.
22. Before arriving at a decision regarding the disproportionality or
otherwise of the penalty of rustication from January, 2018 to June, 2018, I
cannot be unmindful of the fact that from 3rd November, 2017 itself, the
petitioner already stands rusticated and it was only after he had approached
the Court that an order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor permitting him to
appear in some of the exams held in November, 2017. A reference to the
complaint made by the injured child‟s parent who happens to be an Assistant
Professor, also makes me wonder whether the extreme punishment of
rustication was in any manner, influenced by anger expressed by the mother
of the injured child. Was it not the duty of the Board of Directors to
consider the matter from the aspect of not merely punishing the young
student but also from the angle of improving him. Another aspect which I
find disturbing in the present case is that despite the petitioner attempting to
tell the Board of Directors in no unclear terms that the incident was an
unfortunate accident, an attempt has been made to paint the whole incident
as an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline. The attempt to refer to some
previous incidents in which he was involved with a group of students as
being gross acts of indiscipline, even though he was merely warned, for
those incidents also shows that the approach of the Institute was not fair.
23. On the aspect of proportionality of penalty imposed on students by an
academic institution, this Court has, in the case of Akshay Chaudhary &
Anr. Vs. University of Delhi & Anr. in WP (C) No.1897/2010, while
dealing with a case of rustication of students involved in ragging, not only
referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court on which heavy
reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, but
also emphasized that the relationship between the head of an institution and
a student is that of parent and child. This Court in the aforesaid judgment
opined that the purpose of the punishment to be imposed, is to correct the
fault of the student by ensuring that the penalty is commensurate with the
gravity of the misconduct, which reads as follows:-
"15. This Court has however reconsidered the matter only on
the thought that, all in all punishment hardens and renders
people more insensible; it concentrates; it increases the feeling
of estrangement; it strengthens the power of resistance
(courtesy Friedrich Nietzsche, German Philosopher) and that
any punishment that does not correct, that can merely rouse
rebellion in whoever has to endure it, is a piece of gratuitous
infamy which makes those who impose it more guilty in the
eyes of humanity, good sense and reason, nay a hundred times
more guilty than the victim on whom the punishment is
inflicted. (courtesy Marquis De Sade, French Novelist). The
French Philosopher Voltaire famously said that the punishment
of criminals should be of use, when a man is hanged he is good
for nothing. Justice Krishna Iyer also in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. AIR
1978 SC 429 observed that punitive harshness should be
minimized.
16. The petitioners were young lads barely 20 years old when
indulged in ragging. Undoubtedly they are guilty, however the
said guilt will be in the context of their youth. Aristotle said
"Young people are in a condition like permanent intoxication,
because youth is sweet and they are growing". Oscar Wilde by
saying "To get back one‟s youth one has merely to repeat one‟s
follies" put the matter succinctly.
17. The question therefore which perturbed me was that when
the Regulation aforesaid provides for administrative
punishment, of minimum of suspension from attending classes
and academic privileges and maximum of expulsion from the
Institution and consequential debarring from admission to any
other Institution for a specified period, whether the maximum
punishment is today justified. The signal intended to be sent by
expelling the petitioners has already reached where it was
intended. The petitioners have shown sufficient remorse. They
have not indulged in any reckless litigation. I find that students
punished for ragging or violation of disciplinary norms of the
College/University have approached this Court in the past with
all kinds of pleas, of the principles of nature justice having not
been complied with, hearing having not been given, right of
cross examination having been not given (see Ashish Bhateja
v. Indian Institute of Technology, AIR 1993 Delhi 354 and
Mansoor Azam v. Jamia Millia Islamia 90(2001) DLT 735).
The petitioners have not indulged in disputes of any such
nature.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. The Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India
AIR 1987 SC 2386 held that the question of choice and
quantum of punishment, though within the jurisdiction and
discretion of the punishing authority, but the sentence has to
suit the offence and the offender; it should not be vindictive or
unduly harsh nor it should be so disproportionate to the offence
so as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive
evidence of bias; the punishment if in outrageous defiance of
logic, then would not be immune from correction. Reliance was
placed on the earlier judgment in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of
Himanchal Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 454 laying that penalty
imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity
of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
20. The Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI AIR 1996
SC 484 held that the Court in exercising the power of judicial
review, depending upon the facts, is empowered to
appropriately mould the relief, either by itself imposing another
penalty with a view to shorten the litigation or by refering
matter back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary
authority in the present case being the Vice-Chancellor as in-
charge of the educational Institution, with a view to ensure that
discipline is maintained and required to be armed with
sufficient power so that those who are to study and improve
their careers should not be the victims of a handful of persons in
the Institution who spoil the academic atmosphere by indulging
in anti-social activities in the matter of discipline has chosen not
to consider the representation of the petitioners.
21. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in T.T.
Chakravarthy Yuvraj Vs. Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Medical College, AIR 1997 Karnataka 261 held that in
inflicting appropriate punishment, certain aspects have to be
borne in mind. The relationship of the Head of the Institution
and the student is that of a parent and child, the punishment
imposed should not result in any retribution or give vent to a
feeling of wrath. The main purpose of punishment is to correct
the fault of the student concerned by making him more alert in
future and to hold out a warning to other students to be careful,
so that they may not expose themselves to similar punishment
and the approach is that of a parent towards an erring or
misguided child. It was held that the concerned Head of the
Institution must necessarily have an introspective and a rational
faculty as to why lesser penalty cannot be imposed. In doing so,
it should also be borne in mind that when the maximum penalty
is imposed, total ruination stares one in the eye rendering such
student a vagabond as being unwanted both by the parents and
the educational Institution. Frustration that would result would
seriously jeopardise young life. Every harsh order results in
bitterness and arouses a feeling of antagonism and many a time
turns a student into an anti-social element and in that way it
results in more harm than good to the society. A student in the
hands of Principal/Head is a child in the hands of a parent and a
parent would never want the career of a child to be completely
destroyed by expulsion which necessarily renders him unfit for
any other career either, for no College would be willing to grant
them admission to enable them to complete their studies
thereby leading to such frustration and disappointment or
despondency which may lead even either to suicide or turn
them into antisocial elements.
22. Therefore permanently putting an end to the career of the
petitioners would not be an appropriate punishment. The
Karnataka High Court quotes Shakespeare in "Merchant of
Venice": "Justice should be tempered with mercy" and Jesus
Christ: "They know not what they do. Forgive them." 23. In the
words of George Bernard Shaw "If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you
must improve him and men, are not improved by injuries."
Modern penologists hold the view that punishment should not
necessarily be „retributory‟ and „deterrent‟ but should be
„rehabilitative‟. Hegel, a German Philosopher in his theory on
Punishment asserts that "object of punishment is to make the
criminal repent his crime, and by doing so to realize his moral
character, which has been temporarily obscured by his wrong
action, but which is his deepest and truest nature." Justice
Krishna Iyer in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 emphasized "The subculture that
leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue
cruelty but by reculturisation.""
24. Thus in any view, while giving autonomy to the institute to maintain
its standards and ensure disciplined behaviour by the students, injustice
cannot be allowed to be meted out to the student. The institution is also
expected to treat the student fairly and the process by which it imposes
penalties on the student should take into consideration all the relevant
factors, including the nature of alleged act of indiscipline and misconduct.
In the light of facts as noted above and the decisions referred to
hereinabove, I am of the considered view that for the act in question, which
is alleged to be rash and negligent, the penalty imposed on the petitioner
vide order dated 03.11.2017 as modified by order dated 13.11.2017 passed
by the Vice Chancellor, is shockingly disproportionate, and cannot be
sustained.
25. Having found the penalty to be shockingly disproportionate, I would
normally have remanded the matter back to the respondents for re-
consideration of the penalty. However, keeping in view the need to urgently
decide the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner as the academic session
has already started, instead of remanding the matter once again to the
respondent, I deem it appropriate to mould the punishment of rustication by
directing that the same would be treated only upto 15.01.2018 instead of till
June, 2018 specially keeping in the view that the Petitioner, who, besides
facing criminal proceedings in the FIR, has already suffered for over two
months. The other directions in the impugned order dated 03.11.2017
regarding the petitioner being put on probation during his academic career
are, however, sustained. The petitioner would be allowed to register for the
next semester within seven days and would be allowed to attend regular
classes.
26. The petitioner will, however, not be allowed to either enter the hostel
or the residential part of the campus. The petitioner will also pay costs of
Rs.50,000/- to be used towards the Students Welfare Fund of the Institute.
27. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 24 , 2018/gm
