The requirement of natural justice is applicable not only to judicial or quasi-judicial orders but also to administrative orders with civil consequences. Any action taken in contravention of the principles of natural justice is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the impugned office orders dated 01.08.2018 and 03.09.2018 issued by the Chief Proctor and later approved by the Vice Chancellor, of the respondent -University respectively.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the impugned action against the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. The impugned orders are also bereft of any reasons much less sound reason. According to him, the order of rejecting her appeal dated 03.09.2018 would not reflect any reason as to why the Vice Chancellor did not find any merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this court dated 24.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 7511/2019 wherein an order passed by the same University was interfered with only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University while placing reliance on its counter-affidavit states that the petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing. Three notices were given to the petitioner and when she appeared, in pursuance to one of the notices, she admitted her presence on the place of incident and she was also an office- bearer of the Students' Union of Jawaharlal Nehru University. According to him, the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law. Since the guilt of the petitioner was established by the competent authority, therefore, the impugned action has been taken. According to him, the authorities concerned were rather lenient in taking actions only limiting to a monetary fine. According to him, there were certain depositions recorded by the authorities, which show that the petitioner was involved in the incident in question and, therefore, the action was necessitated.

4. In rejoinder submission, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that had the petitioner been put to the notice about the deposition, if any, against her, the petitioner would have taken appropriate recourse in accordance with law. According to him, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner; therefore, any evidence taken behind her back cannot be taken into consideration. He also submits that whatever is being stated on the basis of the counter-affidavit, cannot be considered at this stage as, if the impugned order is perused, the same would not reflect any reason. He places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Commission of India, (1978)1 SCC 405 and states that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

6. The impugned order records the findings of the involvement of petitioner in physically stopping the installation of the CCTV camera, taking out the camera installed outside the hostel and the wiring associated with it. It is also stated that the petitioner damaged the camera in Brahmaputra hostel on the date of the incident and the act of the petitioner was found to be under Item 3, Category II (xv), (xxv) of the Statute 32(5) of Statutes of the University. Accordingly, the petitioner has been imposed with the fine of Rs.20,666/- towards the cost of damaging of CCTV camera with a strict warning not to repeat such indiscipline activity in future. If the order of appeal approved by the Vice Chancellor is perused, the same would only indicate that t