( 1 ) THE petitioner, a third year student of the Indian Institute of Technology (I. I. T.), has filed this petition for quashing the following punishment imposed upon him by the Director, I. I. T. :-

"you are rusticated from the Institute for two semesters with immediate effect, i. e. , for the remainder of the current semester and the II Semester 1993-94 and expelled from the hostel for the entire stay at the Institute. Further, you are warned sternly not to indulge in any act of indiscipline in the hostel and/or Institute during your entire stay in the Institute. You are also debarred from holding/contesting any official position in the hostel and/or Institute in future. "

( 2 ) THIS punishment was imposed on the petitioner on the following charge :-

"you were among the students who were involved in and who participated in a vulgar and shameful incident of ragging in which some first year students were harrassed, forced to strip and perform perverse unnatural acts. Further you failed to bring the same to the notice of the authorities. Thus you violated the instructions contained in the Order IITD/ SAS/93 dated 2. 7. 1993 and circular "welcome to Freshers" issued by the Dean of Students, banning ragging in the Institute. "

( 3 ) CONTENTIONS raised are two fold: (1) that rules of natural justice have been violated, and (2) the disciplinary authority and the punishing authority should have been different. There is hardly any substance in the second contention. As far as the question of principles of natural justice are concerned these vary from case to case and situation to situation. They cannot be put in a straight jacket formula.

( 4 ) THE incident alleged against the petitioner happened on 16 August 1993 at early hours at 1. 00 A. M. at the Karakoram Hostel in the campus. He was told of the charge against him on 18 August p7 @, 1993 by the Dean of Students. It was mentioned therein that the incident took place in the early morning of 16th August 1993 at about 1. 00 a. m. and continued fora period of over one hour. " The petitioner was told that he had appeared before the Hostel Honours Committee and he was informed about his involvement in the incident. The Hostel Honours Committee provided him an opportunity to make a written statement regarding his involvement in the incident which the petitioner did. The petitioner was further told that on the recommendation of the Hostel Honours Committee the case was then to be examined by the Institute Disciplinary Committee of the Institute on 19 August 1993 at 2. 30 P. M. By this letter of 18 August 1993 of the Dean the petitioner was informed his direct involvement in the incident and was given opportunity to make his submissions, if any in addition to his written submission already submitted by him to the House Honours Committee. He was told to give the written submissions latest by 10. 00 A. M. on 19 August 1993. The petitioner did represent. He denied his involvement and said that he had come from his residence at 10. 30p. M. on 16august 1993. He said around 1. 30a. M. there was a lot of noise in the corridor outside his room due to very loud music being played. He said he was disturbed in his sleep. He opened the door of his room and retired back to sleep when the deafening music was switched off after 10-15 minutes. That is all what the petitioner said about the incident and then he said about his excellent academic career in the Institute. Lastly, he said as under:-

"in view of my immatunity (immaturity?) I did not realise that I should not have stood at that place and immediately left it. I am prepared to face punishment on that count. "

( 5 ) THEN the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Registrar (UGS) of the Institute byofficeorderdated21 August 1993 that on the basis of his written submission in the House Honours Committee and his reply to the communication dated 18 August 1993, his own evidence and evidence of other students before the Disciplinary Committe