Uttarakhand High Court
Vishal Kumar vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2024 (M/S)
Vishal Kumar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and another
........... Respondents
Present : The petitioner appeared in-person.
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Amicus Curiae.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to an Office
Order dated 30.09.2024, issued by the respondent no.2/the
Director, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Swami
Ram Teerth Campus, Badshahi Thaul, District Tehri Garhwal ("the
University"). By it, based on the recommendation of Proctorial
Board, the petitioner has been debarred to take admission in L.L.B.
Third Semester or in any other course in the University.
2. 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
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:-
(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.
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
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.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.05.2025
Sanjay
