IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Adil Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 3297 of 2020
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 427 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - AMU Students' Conduct and Discipline Rules, 1985 - Disciplinary proceedings - Violation of principles of natural justice – A student approached this Court pleading that he has not been treated fairly by the University while passing an order expelling him from the rolls of the University for a duration of five academic sessions on the charge that he had indulged in acts of indiscipline and misconduct – Whether petition is maintainable – Held, Petitioner has already remained under expulsion for more than four years because of orders which, as noted earlier, have been passed without following the principles of natural justice – It would not be equitable or just to remand back the matter to the University authorities to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice or to the Vice-Chancellor to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. A student of B.A.LL.B. in the Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter referred to as, ''University') has approached this Court pleading that he has not been treated fairly by the University while passing an order expelling him from the rolls of the University for a duration of five academic sessions on the charge that he had indulged in acts of indiscipline and misconduct as defined in AMU Students' Conduct and Discipline Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, ''Rules, 1985"). The petitioner pleads violation of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
2. The facts of the case are that there were differences between two groups of students on the issue of inviting a political leader in the University Campus, as a result of which violent activities disrupting the academic atmosphere in the University took place on the Campus on 12.2.2019. The petitioner is alleged to have participated in the violence. By order dated 13.2.2019, the Proctor of the University suspended the petitioner and three other students including one Farhan Zubairi. The order dated 13.2.2019 notes that one Manish Kumar had filed a complaint to the Proctor stating that two students of the University had abused and physically assaulted him and blamed the petitioner and Farhan Zubairi for the chaos in the campus. The order dated 13.2.2019 also prohibited the petitioner from entering the University Campus. On 14.2.2019, two First Information Reports were registered in relation to incident dated 12.2.2019. F.I.R. No. 61 of 2019 was registered at the instance of one Azim Akhtar, an employee of the University, under Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused named in the F.I.R. along with some unknown persons and political leaders had created disturbances at the administrative building of the University. The other First Information Report numbered as F.I.R. No. 62 of 2019 was registered at the instance of one Dr. Nishit Sharma under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 427 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on 12.2.2019, the accused named in the F.I.R. along with certain unknown persons had physically assaulted the informant and students of the University and had also fired at the vehicle of the informant and had set on fire other vehicles. The petitioner was not named as an accused in either of the F.I.R. A charge-sheet dated 13.7.2019 has been filed in F.I.R. No. 62 of 2019. The petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge-sheet though Farhan Zubairi has been noted as an accused in the aforesaid charge-sheet.
3. On 28.2.2019, one Mazhar Siddiqui, an employee of the University, lodged a First Information Report numbered as F.I.R. No. 0089 of 2019 against the petitioner and one Nabil under Sections 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on 28.2.2019, the petitioner along with the co-accused came in the office of the informant and the co-accused fired at the informant by a country-made pistol. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner abused the informant and also instigated the co-accused Nabil to fire at the informant. It has been further stated in the F.I.R. that Nabil Ahmed was apprehended by the informant but the petitioner managed to escape from the spot with the fire-arm. A charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. The trial in the said criminal case is pending before the concerned court. It has been stated by the petitioner that the charge-sheet filed in F.I.R. No. 0089 of 2019 has been challenged before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pending before this Court are not relevant for the present writ petition and, therefore, the details of the said case are not being narrated in the present judgment.
4. An inquiry report dated 5.3.2019 was submitted by the Proctorial Board of the University stating that, on 12.2.2019, the petitioner had manhandled and abused the university security person
Syed Ehteshamul Haq vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh & Ors.
State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma
V.C. Guru Ghasi Das University vs. Craig Macleod
Chairman, LIC vs. A. Masilamani
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh
Union of India & Ors. Amar Singh
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
Chairman, J & K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors.
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.
M/s. Travancore Rayon Ltd. vs. Union of India
Messrs. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others
The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.
The court emphasized that punitive actions against students must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing before any disciplinary action is taken.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a disciplinary authority, such as the Executive Council, exercises quasi-judicial function and lacks the authority to review its own decision ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expulsion of students from a university must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing as....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.