JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The petitioners who are students of respondent No. 2 Engineering College have brought in question the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Principal of the same college on 20th July, 2000 expelling them from the college and disallowing them from appearing in any examination as students of the said college in future. 2. The petitioner No. 1 has completed the first semester of second year of Engineering, petitioner No. 2 was the classmate of petitioner No. 1, whereas petitioner No. 3 has completed first semester of second year (Mech.). Petitioner No. 4 has completed first semester of 3rd year (Electronics), petitioner No. 5 has completed first semester of second year (Electronics and Telecommunication), petitioner No. 6 was to appear for final examinations of B.E. and petitioner No. 7 has completed first semester of second year (Mechanical). It is alleged that, on 4th February, 2000 they had, under some pretext, taken one of their college-mates Devendra Puri on Latur Road between 9.30 to 10.00 p.m. and attacked him with sticks/iron rods and during the said attack he sustained serious head injury and fell unconscious. Some of the petitioners then took him to Solapur and got him admitted at the Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Centre in the midnight or the early hours of 5th February, 2000. At the said hospital they allegedly informed that Devendra Puri sustained the injuries because of accident and he was a student studying in the same college and, therefore, was brought to the hospital urgently. However, an F.I.R. came to be lodged on 6th June, 2000 at about 7.45 p.m. with the Police Station of Tuljapur by one of their colleague viz. Jitendrakumar Singh, stating therein that, Devendra Puri was assaulted by the petitioners and in fact they had attempted to murder him. It was also stated in the said F.I.R. that, the complainant on receiving the information, of Devendra being admitted in the hospital at Solapur went to visit him and he was threatened by some of the petitioners that if he disclosed the fact regarding the assault on Devendra Puri at their hands, he would be also eliminated. Accordingly, Crime No. 15/2000 came to be registered against the petitioners and eventually they surrendered to the Police Station. 3. Accordingly, Crime No. 15/2000 came to be registered against the petitioners and eventually they surrendered to the Police Station. 3. Crime No. 15/2000 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 307, 148, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently their bail applications were rejected by the Court below as well as by this Court. However, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter the petitioners have been released on bail by this Court by order dated 13th and 14th of June, 2000. 4. The Principal i.e. respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice on 17th June, 2000 against each of the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why action under Ordinance 128 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar University, Aurangabad should not be taken against them in view of the seriousness of the charges registered against them in Crime No. 15/2000. All the petitioners submitted their reply, to the said show cause notice on 24th June, 2000 and also brought to the notice of the Principal that they were released on bail by this Court and their innocence could be proved during the trial before the Sessions Court. They also denied the charge that they had attempted to murder Mr. Devendra Puri, a student studying in their college, and that they had engaged in any criminal activities during the course of their studies. After considering the written reply, filed by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order on 20th July, 2000 and struck off their names from the college. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Principal had no powers under Ordinance No. 128 as claimed by respondent No. 2 University and such a power was vested only with the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, the impugned order was without authority in law. It is also contended that the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioners did not take place in the college premises and, therefore, the Principal had no authority to take action against the petitioners and in any case the action is required to be taken by committee as is required to be formed under Ordinance 133. It is also contended that the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioners did not take place in the college premises and, therefore, the Principal had no authority to take action against the petitioners and in any case the action is required to be taken by committee as is required to be formed under Ordinance 133. The show cause notice as well as the impugned orders are in pari materia with each of them and, therefore, it is obvious that the Principal had proceeded against the petitioners with predetermined mind and without referring the issue to the Disciplinary Committee or without application of mind to the nature of complaints registered against the petitioners, it is also urged before us that, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners after they had submitted their written explanation and before the impugned order came to be passed. Lastly, it had been contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioners is harsh and is nothing short of a capital punishment which has virtually withdrawn their fundamental right of education within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. 6. The Principal has filed affidavit in reply and stated that in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order Ordinance 128 has been inadvertently mentioned and it ought to have been mentioned as Ordinance 129. It is also stated that, before the impugned action was taken, the committee consisting the Principal, Registrar and head of the department had taken decision to issue show cause notice to the petitioners and on receipt of their reply and on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the committee decided to strike off their names. However, no papers have been submitted before us in support of the averment made in the reply. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions : (i) (Sadhu Ram Hardwari Lal v. Principal, Rajindra College, Bhatinda and another)1, A.I.R. 1954 Pepsu 151. (ii) (Jogendra Raj Kishore v. University of Allahabad and others)2, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 503. (iii) (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others)3, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1110 and (iv) (Km. Sidh Vidya v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others)4, A.I.R. 2000 Allahabad 244. 8. (ii) (Jogendra Raj Kishore v. University of Allahabad and others)2, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 503. (iii) (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others)3, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1110 and (iv) (Km. Sidh Vidya v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others)4, A.I.R. 2000 Allahabad 244. 8. In the case of Jogendra Raj Kishore (supra) the petitioner were expelled by the Vice Chancellor on account of gross misconduct and the said order was challenged on two grounds (i) that, on the date when the order was passed he was not a student of the University and consequently the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to pass the said order and (ii) that, the order passed by the Vice Chancellor was without making any enquiry into the matter and without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the misconduct alleged against him and consequently the order was illegal. 9. We are not concerned with the observations on Point No. 1 and we must note the observations on Point No. 2 as made by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, which we quote as under :--- "Apart from the cases in which special provision of a statute may obviate the necessity of hearing the aggrieved party, there is another exception to the general rule that no notice need be given when action is taken for the maintenance of discipline. Where a class teacher or the head of an educational institution or a commander of an army in the field of an officer in charge of a fire brigade is faced with acts of indiscipline on the part of a student or examinee or a member of the force, for the purpose of maintaining order and discipline in the institution or force, his action is necessarily to be quick and immediate lest one had example may corrupt, others. In such cases, in the nature of things, immediate action may be necessary and if there is an obligation on the authority to give an opportunity to show cause, it may result in defeating the very object for which a power is given to the executive authority, and the courts will be reluctant to interfere with the discretion, in such circumstances, exercised by the authority in inflicting punishment, except in cases where it goes beyond its jurisdiction or when action has not been taken bona fide ......." 10. The principles thus laid down by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the said case do not assist the cause of the petitioners. In the case of Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad (supra) the Supreme Court inter alia laid down that (i) when a Disciplinary Committee is to act judicially as a quasi judicial Tribunal, it has to set out its own procedure depending on the nature of its constitution and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and (ii) adequate opportunity to present his case is given to the examinee. 11. When the college students are involved in a criminal offence and the victim of such an offence is none other than a student of the said college, it cannot be accepted that such incident would not in any way affect the discipline in the college premises and the Principal is without powers to take an action against such students, merely because the incident had taken place outside the college premises. It is no doubt true that the accused will be dealt with as per the result of the trial by the competent Court, but at the same time the Principal cannot offer to close his eyes and ears on the ground that the incident had taken place outside his college premises and the accused will be dealt with as per the criminal law. Such incidents, even if they had taken place outside the college campus, are bound to have a direct bearing on the discipline of the campus and the theory of national extension will certainly come into place as the incident are detrimental to the college campus discipline. In such cases, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the incident alleged against the petitioners did not take place in the college premises and, therefore, the Principal had no authority to proceed against them, cannot be accepted. 12. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of section 87 of the Marathwada University Act, 1974 as well as Ordinances 128, 132, 133 of the said University. As observed hereinabove, we need not dwell upon the provisions of Ordinance 128 as it was inadvertently mentioned in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order and it ought to have been mentioned as Ordinance 129. As observed hereinabove, we need not dwell upon the provisions of Ordinance 128 as it was inadvertently mentioned in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order and it ought to have been mentioned as Ordinance 129. We are, therefore, concerned with the provisions of three Ordinances viz. 129, 132 and 133 of the respondent No. 3 University and they read as under : "O. 129. Under the provisions of section 87(8) of the Act, all powers relating to the disciplinary action against a student in a college or an institution not maintained by the University, shall vest in the Principal of a college or the Head of an Institution in accordance with the Rules framed by the Principal of the college or the Head of the Institution and approved by the Executive Council. O. 132. Every college shall frame Rules of discipline and conduct which shall not be inconsistent with the University Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules and shall submit the same to the University for approval of the Executive Council. O. 133. (i) Every college shall have Committee of Discipline consisting of not less than three or not more than five members. (ii) The Principal of the college shall be the Chairman of the Committee. One representative shall be appointed by the Management of the College or by the Director of the respective Department, if the college is run by the State Government. The remaining members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Principal from amongst the Teaching staff of the college. (iii) In case of contravention of rules of discipline by any student the Principal in consultation with the Committee shall take suitable action under the aforesaid provision and shall report to the University, if the punishment is of a major nature." 13. Under Ordinance 133 every college must have a Committee of Discipline, of not less than three and not more than five members with the Principal being the Chairman of the said Committee. One of the representatives in the committee shall be appointed by the management of the college and the remaining members shall be appointed by the Principal from amongst the teaching staff of the college. One of the representatives in the committee shall be appointed by the management of the college and the remaining members shall be appointed by the Principal from amongst the teaching staff of the college. It is further provided that, in case of contravention of Rules of discipline by any student, the Principal in consultation with the Committee shall take suitable action under the said provisions and shall report to the University if the punishment is of major nature. One need not look into the provisions of section 87 of the Marathwada University Act as the said Act has been repealed and the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short, the Act) is now applicable in its place. Section 95 of the said Act deal with the disciplinary powers and discipline amongst students. As per sub-section (3), the Vice Chancellor may in exercise of his powers, by order, direct that any student or students be expelled or rusticated for a specified period or be not admitted in course or courses of studies in college, institution or department of university for a specified period or be punished with fine not exceeding Rs. 300/- or be debarred from taking an examination or examinations conducted by the department, college or institution maintained by the University for a specified period not exceeding five years or that the result of the student or students concerned in the examination in which he or they had appeared to be cancelled, provided that the Vice Chancellor shall give reasonable opportunity to the student concerned of being heard, if expulsion is for a period exceeding one year. Sub-section (4) states that without prejudice to the powers of Vice Chancellor the Principals of concerned colleges, Head of University Institutions and Head of the Department of University shall have authority to exercise all such powers in respect of the students in their respective charge as may be necessary for the maintenance of discipline. Sub-section (6) states that, members of the college and Head of the University Institution may make such disciplinary rules for proper conduct not inconsistent with the rules made by the Vice Chancellor as they think necessary and every student shall be supplied with the copy of such supplementary rules. Sub-section (6) states that, members of the college and Head of the University Institution may make such disciplinary rules for proper conduct not inconsistent with the rules made by the Vice Chancellor as they think necessary and every student shall be supplied with the copy of such supplementary rules. Whereas, sub-section (8) of section 95 of the Act provides that all powers relating to disciplinary action against the student of an affiliated college or recognised institution not maintained by the University shall vest in the Principals of the affiliated colleges or head of the recognised institution, and the provisions of the foregoing sub-sections including the rules, if any, made thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to such colleges, institutions and students therein. 14. The provisions of section 95 of the Act as well as Ordinances 129, 132 and 133 read together empower the Principal to take an action against the erring students by following the procedure and it is mandatory that if the expulsion is for a period exceeding one year, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given before the punishment order is passed and under the Ordinance 133 the Principal has to decide the action in consultation with the Committee, it is no where stated that the hearing must be given by the Committee and all that is necessary for the Principal to take the decision in such matters in consultation with the Committee. In the instant case it has been stated on oath that, the Principal had consulted the committee consisting of himself, Registrar, the Head of the Department. We, therefore, do not find any procedural error in this respect and, therefore, we are not persuaded to accept that the Committee ought to have heard the petitioners before the impunged orders were passed. 15. Regarding the material on record against the petitioners to proceed against them on account of acts of indiscipline, we had called for the original file from the concerned Police Station and we have gone through the statements recorded during the investigation as well as the medical certificates. 15. Regarding the material on record against the petitioners to proceed against them on account of acts of indiscipline, we had called for the original file from the concerned Police Station and we have gone through the statements recorded during the investigation as well as the medical certificates. The medical certificates indicate that, Devendra Puri had received grievous head injuries, he was operated, when he was reached to the hospital he was unconscious and he remained to the unconscious even after the operation, the police could not record his statement and on 13th March, 2000 his family members got him discharged from the hospital at Solapur and shifted him to Delhi. We are also informed that even the recent attempt made by the police to record the statement of Devendra Puri have been in vain solely because he has not regained his speech and he does not react even on the first and second call and he reacts only on the third call which indicates that his mental faculties are still not normal. He was admitted in the hospital at Solapur purportedly by the relatives and the certificate indicates that it was reported to be case of accident. There is no dispute that some of the petitioners only took him to the hospital at Solapur and got him admitted and it is thus obvious that they did not disclose their names and mentioned only as relatives and also gave a false alibi of accident. The allegations against the petitioners are, therefore, of serious nature and they are as under :--- (a) On 4th April, 2000 they lured Devendra Puri to come out with them along the Latur Road and assaulted him severely with sticks/lathis/iron rods and resultantly he fell unconscious and had to undergo major surgeries, in fact he continues to be under treatment even at present though he has miraculously escaped from the clutches of death; (b) They informed the hospital and the police as a case of accident as against the injuries being on account of and as a result of assault on Devendra Puri and; (c) They threatened the complainant that he would be killed if he informed the factual position to any one else. 16. 16. We have no doubt to observe that this was a fit case to proceed against the petitioners and take a serious view of the behaviour of the petitioners as students of respondent No. 2 college. The material on record does make out a case to proceed against them and we refrain to say anything further in view of the fact that the petitioners are facing a criminal trial before the Sessions Court. At the same time, we do feel that before issuing the impugned order the Principal ought to have heard the petitioners and taken into consideration their plea after they had submitted their reply to the show cause notice, especially when a major punishment has been inflicted upon them. Though the right to pursue higher education may not strictly fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, the provisions of section 95 of the Act mandate the Principal to offer a reasonable opportunity to the students of being heard if the expulsion is for a period exceeding one year. This statutory requirement has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is in breach of the principles of natural justice. We may, in this regard, refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Chairman, J. K. State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others)5, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1039 wherein the Supreme Court inter alia observe : "........... In matters concerned campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in charge of the institutions. In such matters Court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the concerned authorities nor thrust its views of them. That is not to say that the Court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The Court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the Rules, Regulations or Notification and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates." 17. That is not to say that the Court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The Court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the Rules, Regulations or Notification and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates." 17. Considering the facts and circumstances as elaborately set out herein above, we have reached to a conclusion that the impugned punishment order cannot be sustained solely on the ground that the petitioners were not heard before the said orders were passed and after they had submitted their reply to the show cause notice, though we have held that the Principal has the authority to proceed against the petitioners and he had consulted the committee before the impugned action was taken against the petitioners. We must also mention that, the impugned orders did not take into consideration some of the aspects like the petitioners were released on bail by this Court and there is no indication that the college authorities had obtained more particulars from the Police Station at Tuljapur as well as the hospital at Solapur and that the orders of punishment are passed on consideration of such material. This was necessary to be done more so when the punishment proposed was of expulsion from the college and, therefore, it would be necessary for the college authorities not only to hear the petitioners on the proposed punishment but also to take into consideration the material on record like the medical certificates and statements of some of the witnesses and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners and then proceed against them. This should be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a fixed period not only in the interest of the petitioners but also in the academic interest. 18. In the result, we partly allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. We direct the respondent No. 2 to hear the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the pleas of the petitioners and the material on record that may be made available to the Principal. 18. In the result, we partly allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. We direct the respondent No. 2 to hear the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the pleas of the petitioners and the material on record that may be made available to the Principal. In case the petitioners or any one of them prefers not to make any statement or submit any statement in writing during the course of fresh hearings, the respondent No. 2 may proceed further on the basis of the material available on record and take appropriate action as has been provided under section 95 of the Act. The petitioners shall appear before the Principal on 13th November, 2000 and the hearing shall be completed within one week and fresh orders shall be passed by the Principal on or before 30th November, 2000 and our interim order to continue till then. 19. Rule made absolute accordingly, with no orders as to costs. Petition partly allowed. -----