JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has assailed the punishment of rustication imposed by the respondents-University for a period of six months by order dated 25.02.2020, and the order dated 16.03.2020 in appeal reducing the punishment of rustication for a period of three months. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of fresh marks-sheet reflecting the evaluation of the petitioner's performance out of 100 marks, and to delete the endorsement marks "Reappearance September 2020" and to remove the B Cap on the marks secured by the petitioner. Further, the prayer is that the marks-sheet should not reference the rustication of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a student of B.Tech (CSE) in the respondent-University. The petitioner was charged by the university for various acts of indiscipline. The substance of the charges against the petitioner as disclosed in the impugned order 25.02.2020 are extracted hereunder:

"The Students Disciplinary Committee (SDC) in its meeting held on 11th February, 2020 discussed the case of student Mr. Prakhar Nagar student of B.Tech (CSE), Batch 2016-20, Enrollment No.A2305216644, Institute-Amity School of Engineering & Technology, who was alleged to have committed an act of indiscipline during earlier and current academic years.

The SDC examined all the available information with respect to the case and after due deliberation concluded that he had committed the following act of indiscipline-

Violation of student code of conduct - para ii, xiv, xviii.

R4/3/6/(g) Indulging in or encouraging in a conduct which involves moral turpitude.

R4/3/6/(m) Any attempt at bribing or corruption of any manner or description.

R4/3/6/(q) Causing disruption of any manner of the academic functioning of the University system.

R4/3/6(r) Indulging in or encouraging any form of disruptive activity connected with tests, examinations or any other activity of the University or the college or the institution, as the case may be."

3. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel assisted by Shri Jigar Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions:

I. The charges against the petitioner are vague and of a general nature.

II. The impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

III. There is no material in the record to justify the imposition of the aforesaid punishment.

IV. The punishment is disproportionate.

4. Per contra, Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents-University submits that the charges constitute a grave act of indiscipline. An inquiry was duly conducted into the matter. The punishment is proportionate and has been imposed with a view to deter others from wrong doings. The charges are supported by material in the record.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. The petitioner has specifically asserted that the petitioner was never served a charge-sheet containing a statement of charges along with the adverse material which was relied upon by the respondents-authorities while passing the impugned order.

7. The specific pleadings in the writ petiton in this regard are not traversed by the respondents in their counter affidavits. Failure to serve a charge-sheet disclosing charges with material particulars upon the petitioner disabled him from tendering an effective defence of his case. The omission constitutes a grave violation of principles of natural justice. The vague nature of the charges vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

8. The second faultline in the impugned orders is that they were passed on the foot of an ex parte enquiry. The pleadings in the writ petition in regard to the enquiry being conducted in violation of principles of natural justice too have not been traversed in the counter affidavit. The enquiry against the petitioner which culminated in the impugned orders was passed by adopting a procedure not known to law.

9. Attention has been called by the respondents to the certain proceedings chart appended to the counter affidavit to conte