Point of Law : Regulation 23(2), as quoted above, clearly prescribes that inquiry/investigation is to be held giving adequate opportunity to the student/students, accused of ragging.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari and Sri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1-petitioner, learned State counsel representing the State-respondent No. 2, Sri Kshitij Mishra, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 4 and Sri Gyanendra Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5.

2. This special appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Writ-C No. 5622 of 2022 filed by the respondent no. 1-petitioner therein has been allowed and the order dated 25.7.2022 passed by the appellant-Institution whereby respondent no. 1-petitioner was rusticated temporarily for a period of three months as intern in the Institution has been set aside. Learned Single Judge has also directed that the certificate which may be awarded to the respondent no. 1-petitioner on completion of internship shall not record that he was found guilty of ragging in the Institution.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was no material on record, which could form the basis of guilt of ragging against the respondent no. 1petitioner, is not correct in as much as on record there was enough material to form the opinion that he was guilty of ragging.

4. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that while conducting the inquiry which culminated in passing of the order impugned in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, the provisions contained in the statutory regulations known as National Medical Commission (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges and Institutions) Regulations 2021 (hereinafter referred as 'Regulations 2021') were meticulously followed and as such the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge Bench that the respondent no. 1-petitioner was not given any opportunity to confront with the inquiry report, is misplaced for the reason that under the procedure prescribed in the said Regulations no such prescription is available. It is also argued that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that no show-cause notice inviting explanation/reply to the inquiry report was given, also does not have any bearing in the matters of inquiries to be conducted in terms of the Regulations 2021 for the reason that the Regulations do not contemplate any such procedure.

5. Lastly, Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel representing the appellant-Institution has submitted that in any eventuality in case any flaw in the procedure followed for conducting the inquiry was found by the learned Single Judge, right of the Institution to complete the inquiry as per the legal procedure could not have been curtailed and in the instant case the conduct of the respondent no. 1-petitioner warranted that some exemplary action against the respondent no. 1-petitioner ought to have been taken in order to fulfil the aims and objectives for which Regulations 2021 have been framed.

6. On the other hand, Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1-petitioner submitted that in view of the admission made by the appellant-Institution that the respondent no. 1-petitioner was not confronted with the inquiry report on the basis of which impugned action has precipitated, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under appeal herein, does not warrant any interference by this court in this special appeal. He has also stated that as a matter of fact enough material was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge depicting the clear bias of the parties/Management of the appellant-Institution against the respondent no. 1-petitioner and it is only on account of this bias and mala fide that the impugned action against him whereby he was rusticated temp