IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 Abhinav Sharma .….Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mansi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate, and Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Vice Chancellor, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences-respondent No.3, whereby, acting upon the recommendations of the Board of Discipline, the petitioner, who was pursuing his M.B.B.S. course (Batch 2020), has been expelled from the University, with immediate effect and all his M.B.B.S. examination results in the paper(s)/subject(s) concerned (that are tainted by malpractice) have also been cancelled, besides debarring him from re-admission.

2. Assailing the impugned order, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the same is vitiated by a patent violation of the principles of natural justice and is, on this ground alone, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the Vice Chancellor neither afforded the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing nor supplied him the copies of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline, and report of the Handwriting Expert, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to submit a comprehensive response.

3. On merits as well, he contends that there exists no cogent, reliable, or legally sustainable evidence establishing the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged misconduct. It is further urged that the penalty of expulsion, being the severest punishment, is grossly disproportionate to the allegations and the material on record.

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4, having received an advance copy of the writ petition, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and defends the impugned order. It is contended that a large-scale examination scam had surfaced and was inquired into in a transparent and unbiased manner. A Fact-Finding Inquiry Committee was initially constituted, and on the basis of its detailed report, a Board of Discipline was subsequently constituted in terms of Clause 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance on Maintenance of Discipline among Students (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”). The Board of Discipline afforded the petitioner and other concerned students an opportunity to file written responses as well as to avail personal hearings, and only thereafter, the recommendation was made, which constituted the bedrock for imposition of the penalty of expulsion under Clause 4 of the Ordinance.

5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the instant writ petition has been filed with the oblique motive of obstructing the ongoing criminal prosecution arising out of FIR No.25 dated 15.02.2025, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7A and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against one Roshan Lal, clerical staff, and 24 students (including the petitioner).

6. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the legality of the impugned order, it is deemed imperative to recapitulate the relevant factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings.

7. The University received a complaint alleging large-scale irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of M.B.B.S. examinations. Consequently, a Preliminary Inquiry Committee was constituted, which submitted its detailed report on 13.02.2025, highlighting grave irregularities in the answer sheets of 30 students, including the petitioner. The key findings penned down therein were: (i) mismatch between serial numbers of answer books used by candidates and officia