The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in cases of student indiscipline, the importance of corrective justice, and the need for strict discipline in academic matters.

1. The Writ Petition is filed by a student, who has been rusticated from the 1st respondent University by an impugned order dated 08.12.2016. This is a case which illustrates how a student is expected to pursue his studies after getting an admission in a professional college, indulging in misconduct and violence, resulting in dismissal from college.

2. The facts that lead to the above Writ Petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, who is aged about 20 years, had joined B.E. Mechanical Course in the 1st respondent University, perhaps, with a dream of becoming a successful Engineer. According to him, his dreams including the dreams of his parents were shattered, when the college had issued him the Expulsion Order dated 08.12.2016.

(ii) Originally, there was an order dated 06.05.2016 by the 1st respondent informing that the petitioner was expelled from the University based on the Enquiry Report filed by Five Members Committee on 29.04.2016. It was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 19096/2016. The said Writ Petition was ordered on 13.07.2016 remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent, directing them to issue a charge memo with specific details of the allegations and elicit the written response from the petitioner and thereafter, conduct an enquiry by adhering to the principles of natural justice and pass orders in accordance with the norms and regulations as expeditiously as possible.

(iii) Accordingly, the 1st respondent has issued a Show Cause notice dated 05.08.2016 alleging six acts of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and asking him to show cause in writing. The petitioner also gave a reply on 23.08.2016 denying the allegations levelled against him. The 1st respondent College after receipt of the reply, appointed an Enquiry Officer and he was subsequently replaced by another Officer. The Enquiry was conducted on various dates and the petitioner was also examined. In addition a CCTV Footage was also relied on by the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had indulged in vandalism. After thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, based on the facts and evidence available, submitted a report dated 29.11.2016 concluding that the first charge was partly proved and other charges Except Charge No. 4 were proved. Based on the Enquiry Report, the 1st respondent expelled the petitioner from the college for violation of Clauses 1, 4, 7, 9 and 12 of the General Code of Conduct for Students of the University. The Transfer Certificate was also issued to the petitioner. The said order of expulsion is under challenge on the following grounds:

Firstly, it is stated that after the Enquiry Report was submitted, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of being heard by the 1st respondent;

Secondly, it is stated that there was no evidence on the part of the prosecution to show that the petitioner had indulged in any acts of violation. However, the Enquiry Officer had held that the petitioner was guilty of charges levelled against him;

Thirdly, it is stated that the 1st respondent before arriving at the quantum of punishment ought to have sought for an explanation from the petitioner.

3. In response to the same, the Registrar of the 1st respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit wherein it is stated that the 1st respondent College is a Deemed University, established under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The University has been imparting quality education to the students with full security and no untoward incident has happened so far excepting the incident that happened on 07.03.2016 in which the students damaged the University Properties such as furniture, glasses, computers and cars etc. Though the University had employed security personnel in the premises, a mob of students were led by the petitioner barged into each and every Block in the premises and broke the furniture, glasses, computers, cars etc.

4. The petitioner, who was a student of III year B.Tech. Mechanical Engineering Course, was