The imposition of punitive measures, particularly expulsion from a university, is legally unsustainable if passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, which mandate providing the noticee with copies of the inquiry reports and an opportunity for a personal hearing.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The amenability of both these writ petitions for being decided through a common verdict generates from their similar facts and common question(s) of law for consideration. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-8528-2026.

2. The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-3), 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, has been expelled from the University with immediate effect and all her M.B.B.S. examination results in the paper(s)/subject(s) concerned (that are tainted by malpractice) have also been cancelled, besides debarring her from re-admission.

3. Assailing the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-3), 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 her with copies of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and report of the Handwriting Expert, thereby depriving her 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, 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).

7. 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.

8. The University received a complaint alleging large-scale irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of M.B.B.S. examinations. Consequently, a Pre