The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to natural justice principles, including serving a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for personal hearing, before taking disciplinary action in university examinations.

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. On 02.05.2018, when the matter was listed for preliminary hearing, Mr.Rupal who appeared on advance notice on behalf of the respondent, had sought time to get instructions and to produce the relevant record. Today, Mr.Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition may be decided on the basis of pleadings and the relevant records produced by him. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing.

2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner, a student of the three-year L.L.B. degree course of Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, respondent/University, inter alia seeks withdrawal of memorandum dated 23.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned memorandum’) whereby the L.L.B.-III Term examination taken by him for 5th semester in December, 2017, has been cancelled and he has been further debarred from appearing in any examination of the University within a span period of one year. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondent to permit him to appear in the final semester examination of the three-year L.L.B. degree course, which is scheduled to be held from 11.05.2018, after reconsidering his case by affording him with an opportunity of personal hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admitted in the three-year L.L.B. degree course in August, 2015 in the respondent/University and had appeared in the 5th semester examination which had started from 11.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 11.12.2017, just before the start of the examination, the petitioner had some arguments with, the Invigilator Mr.Izikhail, but the same was sorted out due to intervention of another Invigilator. He submits that due to this incident, the Invigilator became vindictive towards the petitioner and just before the exam was about to end, the Invigilator forcibly took away the petitioner’s answer-sheet and pasted a chit on the answer-sheet and alleged that the petitioner was cheating in the exam. He submits that since the petitioner was asked to give an explanation on the spot, he wrote an application wherein he clearly stated that he had not indulged in cheating and it was only due to a mistake that the Invigilator thought that that the chit belonged to him and that he was cheating. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the said incident, the petitioner appeared in all the remaining exams of the 5th semester which were held from 14.12.2017 to 26.12.2017, without any interference by the college and the University. He further submits that the petitioner was regularly attending his 6th semester classes from January, 2018 and he had not only paid the fees for the 6th semester, but had also appeared for the practical examination in the subject of ‘Alternative Dispute Redressal’, held between 20.03.2018 to 22.04.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the result of the 5th semester examination was declared on 13.04.2018, that the petitioner learnt that his result has been withheld with a note ‘result later, if necessary’ and in these circumstances, he approached the examination block of the respondent to get information about the reasons for withholding of his result, but received no satisfactory answer. He contends that it is only on 23.04.2018, that the petitioner was served with the impugned memorandum whereby not only his examination in respect of the 5th semester had been cancelled, but he was also debarred in the forthcoming 6th semester exams, which are slated to commence on 11.05.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had neither received any show-cause notice nor given any opportunity by the Examination Disciplinary Committee of the Respondent to even explain his stand. He therefore, contends that the impugned memorandum has been passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice and