IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7191-2026 Date of Decision: March 11, 2026 MOUZZAM FAROOKH -PETITIONER V/S PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CWP-7302-2026 SHAKTI KUMAR SINGH -PETITIONER V/S PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CWP-7315-2026 VARSHA -PETITIONER V/S PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s), in CWP-7191 and 7302-2026.

Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Nitika Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-7315-2026.

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate, and Ms Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the respondent-University.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The amenability of all these writ petitions for being decided through a common verdict generates from theirs encapsulating similar facts and common question(s) of law for consideration. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-7191-2026.

2. The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-10), passed by the respondent No.1-Vice Chancellor, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, whereby, acting upon the recommendations of the Board of Discipline, the petitioner, who was pursuing M.B.B.S. course (Batch 2022), has been expelled 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. Further, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), and 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-8).

3. Assailing the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-10), learned 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 with 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.

4. 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.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent- University, 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.

6. 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, 47