The show cause notice should specify the proposed punishment, and the order must provide reasons, as per the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order file No.N-1/2012-13/NQ/SRO dated 21.06.2012 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- to the petitioner.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the respondent herein under which they have imposed a penalty of Rs.26/- lakhs on the petitioner College for admitting excess students under NRI quota for the academic year 2011-2012.

2. According to the petitioner, the Rajaas College of Engineering was founded in the year 1984 and they are offering under graduate and post graduate courses. They have been duly approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). According to the petitioner College, in the year 2010, they have submitted an application to the respondent seeking extension of approval for the year 2011-2012 and it was mentioned in the said application that there is no proposal for admitting the students under NRI quota.

3. According to the petitioner, they received a communication from the Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai on 14.06.2011 that up to 5% of sanctioned intake per cut-off marks could be admitted under NRI quota. Relying upon the said communication, the petitioner College had provisionally admitted four students under NRI quota for the said academic year. However, when the admission list was sent for approval to the Director of Technical Education, the same was rejected on the ground that the College does not have approval for the intake of the students under NRI quota. Immediately, the petitioner college has given transfer certificates to those students and also refunded the fees paid by them and those students have not even appeared for the first semester examination.

4. The petitioner had further contended that a show cause notice was issued by the respondent herein on 28.05.2012 calling for explanation why action should not be initiated for admitting the students under NRI quota without proper approval of the respondent herein. The petitioner is said to have submitted a reply on 31.05.2012. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that no such reply was received by the respondent. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed by the respondent imposing a penalty of Rs.26/- lakhs on the petitioner College for excess admission under NRI quota. The said impugned order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended as follows:

(i). The four students were admitted under NRI quota for the academic year 2011-2011 only relying upon the communication of the Director of Technical Education dated 14.06.2011. However, when the said Directorate had refused to approve the admission, all the four students were discharged from the College and their fees were also refunded in total. Those students have not even appeared for the first semester examination. Since the petitioner College came to know about the irregular admission, they have taken immediate action and removed the students from the roll.

(ii). The regulation of the respondent published on 15.01.2010 indicates that admitting excess students than the approved seats would attract seven types of punishments. However, in the show cause notice only the breach of regulation No.11.3 was pointed out but not the consequence of the said breach. In other words, the nature of punishments that is sought to be imposed by the respondent was not mentioned. Unless the course of action to be adopted by the respondent is mentioned in the show cause, the petitioner College would not be in a position to offer their effective explanation. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement reported in 2014 9 SCC 105 (Gorkha Security Services Vs. Governme