JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, A.C.J.

1. The instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2023 by which the writ petition filed by the second respondent (student) was allowed and the order dated 25.02.2020 rusticating him for six months, the appellate order dated 16.03.2020 passed in appeal reducing the period of rustication to three months, were quashed. The appellant-University was also directed to issue a fresh mark sheet to the student treating him as a regular student and to evaluate him out of 100 marks, which had the effect of removing the ‘B+’ Cap and also not make any reference to the disciplinary action taken against the student in the mark sheet and delete the endorsement “reappearance in September, 2020”.

Facts:

2. The second respondent (student) was admitted to B.Tech Course (Computer Science) in the appellant-University in the academic session 2016-2020. He cleared six semesters till April, 2019. While in 7th Semester, he was suspended by order dated 15.11.2019 with immediate effect by appellant no.4 for act of indiscipline by indulging in marking of unauthorised and fake “ODs” (on duty) attendances. Thereafter, the University conducted disciplinary proceedings against him and several others. By order dated 25.02.2020, the second respondent was rusticated from the University for six months w.e.f. 15.11.2019, the date of his suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor. The appeal was disposed of by reducing the period of rustication from six months to three months. The second respondent thereafter preferred the writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

Findings of the Writ Court:

3. The Writ Court has held that there was violation of principles of natural justice, as the student was not supplied the adverse material nor the enquiry report. He was also not served with any formal charge-sheet containing statement of charges and, therefore, the order of rustication and the appellate order were held to be illegal. The Writ Court also took into consideration the period of rustication of three months already undergone, while under suspension and taking a lenient view, with the object of reformation, concluded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. Consequently, the order of punishment was held to be arbitrary and illegal and was set aside. In consequence, further reliefs, as noted above, were also granted.

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants:

4. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-University submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge that there was no proof of service of notice or intimation of charges to the student and the punishment awarded is disproportionate, are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the written statement of the student addressed to the Enquiry Committee dated 06.12.2019, the whatsapp chat of the student, the minutes of the Disciplinary Committee meeting dated 11/12.02.2019, the statement of other students-Aabhushan Verma, Riya Agarwal and Lina Gupta; various correspondence between the University and the second respondent. It is submitted that the student was well aware of the charges against him and he never complained, even at the time of filing appeal that he was not aware of the charges or the nature of enquiry or that he was not associated with the enquiry. It is submitted that the student has not suffered any prejudice, as the University had taken action not only against the second respondent but against various other students involved in the marking of unauthorized “ODs” as well as against faculty members, who were found guilty of dereliction of duties. It is further submitted that under the Regulations a minimum of 75% attendance was ess