Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of CWP No. 6351 of 2007 filed by Sumeet Singh and Varinder Singh, CWP No. 6761 of 2007 filed by Simardeep Singh and CWP No. 6399 of 2007 filed by Sahil Sehgal. The petitioners are aggrieved by orders of rustication passed against them. They are students of MBBS. 2. FIR No. 145 dated 26.9.2006 was registered at Police Station "B" Division Amritsar under Section 307, 148, 149, 506 IPC, Annexure P.9. The same was registered on the statement of Dr. Avtar Singh, father of Pavneet Singh. who was also a student of MBBS. According to the said version, Pavneet Singh had a verbal duel on 25.9.2006 with Simardeep Singh, who was studying in his class. Simardeep Singh gave a threat to him. After Pavneet Singh went to the college on the next day at 7.30 AM, Dr. Avtar Singh also went to the college at about 9.15 AM on an apprehension of a fight. He found that Simardeep Singh was armed with an iron rod, Varinder Singh, Sumeet Singh and three others came there. Varinder Singh picked up an iron chair and hit the head of Pavneet Singh. His turban fell down. Simrandeep Singh gave an iron rod glow on the upper side of left ear of Pavneet Singh. Sumeet Singh Dhadi and three others started pushing Dr. Avtar Singh and his companions while saying that Pavneet Singh should not be spared. The assailants then ran away. The injured was taken to the hospital. He was medically examined at Shri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar and following injury was found : "The patient was lying unconscious in a stretcher on the floor of which pool of blood had collected. Patients face head and clothes were drenched in blood. Blood was seen rapidly coming out from the wound on the back of head near the (L) ear lobe. On close examination of the wound, it was seen that it was a lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 3 cm x brain deep located on the back of head 3 cm behind the mid level of (L) ear lobe. Brain matter was seen protruding out from the debris of the wound. Nature of injury : In my opinion the above said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Notice 1 : This is preliminary inquiry report. Brain matter was seen protruding out from the debris of the wound. Nature of injury : In my opinion the above said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Notice 1 : This is preliminary inquiry report. Note 2 : The report of the radiologist on X-ray, CT scan, MRI etc., shall constitute the supplementary injury report. Note 3 : Operation notes of the chief operating surgeon shall also constitute the supplementary injury report." 3. Respondent No. 1 College, on recommendation of Disciplinary Committee, rusticated Simardeep Singh, Varinder Singh and Sumeet Singh for their misconduct of having caused injuries to Pavneet Singh vide office order Annexure P. 13 dated 28.9.2006. Further, order dated 3.10.2006, Annexure P. 14 was passed in continuation, permanently rusticating the said students. On 7.10.2006, Sahil Sehgal was also ordered to be rusticated for his involvement in the occurrence. 4. Sumeet Singh filed CWP No. 18322 of 2006. which was disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents on 21.11.2006 with a direction to the College to take a final decision on a representation, which was pending. No opinion was expressed on merits. In pursuance of the said order, an order dated 2.12.2006, Annexure P.18 was passed by the College stating that after the College had passed the order, a further order could be passed by the Syndicate of the University only. The petitioner made a representation dated 16.3.2007 against order dated 2.12.2006 but no decision was taken thereon. 5. CWP No. 6351 of 2007 was filed in this Court on 28.4.2007 seeking quashing of order of rustication and declaration that order of rustication/expulsion could come into operation only after being notified as per Regulation No. 4 of the Punjab University Regulations Volume III (2003) Chapter XVI. Further direction was sought to allow the petitioners to carry on their studies and to take supplementary examination in May 2007. 6. Main contention raised in the petition was that during investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Amritsar Zone, the petitioners were exonerated vide report dated 5.2.2007, Annexure P. 20. In the said report, it was also observed that the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence and the FIR could not be given any importance. 6. Main contention raised in the petition was that during investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Amritsar Zone, the petitioners were exonerated vide report dated 5.2.2007, Annexure P. 20. In the said report, it was also observed that the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence and the FIR could not be given any importance. Further submission made in the petition is that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard and as per provisions of Punjab University Regulations, Chapter XVI, opportunity of hearing was required to be given and if the Vice-chancellor felt that the order required revision, the matter could be placed before the Syndicate, whose decision will be final. As per the said regulation, rustication could be for one academic year. 7. On 12.7.2007, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the University made a statement that the decision in the matter will be taken by the Syndicate within 10 days. The decision taken by the Senate (which is equivalent to the Syndicate) has, been filed as Annexure P. 22 dated 19.7.2007 wherein rustication has been approved but it was observed that instead of permanent rustication, rustication will be operative for three to five years till the completion of internship of the batch of the delinquent students. Stand of respondents : 8. The college supported the impugned order by submitting that the atmosphere of the Institute was surcharged due to the incident and an Enquiry Committee headed by Mrs. Sudesh Khanna, Professor and Head of the Department of Radiology was constituted which submitted its report and on that basis, the students were suspended. However, the said report was not traceable. The college council considered the recommendations and passed the order of rustication on 28.9.2006. Further order was passed on 3.10.2006. Rustication has been justified on the basis of the petitioners having been named in the FIR and Sahil Sehgal having been named in supplementary statement. As regards the report of the SSP, it has been stated that further enquiries were conducted by the DIG Litigation and I.G., Crime Branch who held that the petitioners were not innocent and, thus, report of the SP (Crime) was not relevant. 9. As regards the report of the SSP, it has been stated that further enquiries were conducted by the DIG Litigation and I.G., Crime Branch who held that the petitioners were not innocent and, thus, report of the SP (Crime) was not relevant. 9. In the reply of the University dated 4.8.2007, stand taken is that rules of Punjab University were not applicable as per office order of the University dated 11.7.2002 and executive orders of the University were applicable. As per executive order of the University, dis-qualification of a candidate for impersonation, could be upto five years and on that basis, the present misconduct of the students being more serious than use of unfair means, rustication upto five years was justified. Office order of the University dated 11.7.2002 has been filed as Annexure R.I. 10. CM No. 10365 of 2007 had been filed by Dr. Avtar Singh, father of the injured student, with a view to place on record Medical Board examination of the injured student. As per medical report Annexure R. 4/12 dated 28.3.2007, right upper limb of the patient was paralysed and the patient was unable to communicate by speech. He was unable to attend classes on regular basis. A copy of enquiry report of the DIG was filed as Annexure R. 4/13 and a copy of report of the DIG Litigation was filed as Annexure R. 4/14. It was also stated that the final report has already been filed before the Court against the petitioners. 11. We allowed the application and impleaded the applicant as respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, relied upon section 58 of the Baba Farid University Act, to the following effect : "58. Until statutes, ordinances and regulations are made under appropriate provisions of this Act, the statutes, ordinances and regulations framed under the relevant laws and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be made therein by the Vice Chancellor with the endorsement of the Board of Management and approval of Chancellor in so far as they are not in consistent with the provisions of his Act, deemed to be statutes, ordinances and regulations made under the appropriate provisions of this Act." 12. It was submitted that in view of above, the Punjab University rules were applicable which provided for rustication for a period of one year. Until any statute/ordinance or regulation was framed by the Baba Farid University, the Punjab University Rules remained in force subject to the such adaptations or modifications as may be made by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Chancellor. Chapter XVI of Punjab University Calendar, Volume III (2003) relied upon in para 21 of the petition is as under : "1. Before rusticating or expelling a student the Principal of the college concerned shall give adequate and reasonable opportunity to the student to explain his position. 2. Each case of rustication or expulsion shall be reported to the Registrar of the University by the Principal of the College concerned immediately after the order has been passed by him and it shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Principal to the effect that the student had been given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain his position before the order was passed. 3. The Principal may, for reasons to be recorded, revise or review his order within 10 days of the original order. The order so passed along with reasons shall be immediately reported to the Registrar of the University. Provided that no order of rustication or expulsion shall be revised by the Principal after it has been notified under rule 4. 4. The Registrar will enter the order of rustication/expulsion in the Register of students and notify it to all the affiliated Colleges and other Universities in India on expiry of fifteen days from the date of order. 5. As soon as rustication or expulsion of a student has been notified by the University to the Colleges, his name shall be removed from the rolls of the College and he shall not pay any fees to the college during the period of rustication or expulsion. 6. Rustication shall mean the loss of one academic year i.e., the student concerned shall not be allowed to appear in any University examination during the academic year in which he is rusticated. The period of absence from the college, will, however, depend upon the time of the year when the rustication order was passed. 6. Rustication shall mean the loss of one academic year i.e., the student concerned shall not be allowed to appear in any University examination during the academic year in which he is rusticated. The period of absence from the college, will, however, depend upon the time of the year when the rustication order was passed. A rusticated student will have the option of rejoining his class in the same College with the permission of the Principal during the days of admission in the following academic year. 7. A student who is expelled from a college shall not be re- admitted to the same or any other college without the sanction of the Syndicate. An expelled student shall not be allowed to appear in any University examination during the academic year in which he is expelled and the next following year. The period of absence from the college shall however depend upon the time of the year when the order of expulsion was passed. 8. If the Vice Chancellor feels that the order of a Principal rusticating or expelling a student requires revision in the light of the facts which come to his knowledge, the Vice Chancellor may bring the matter to the notice of the syndicate whose decision shall be final." 13. Reliance was further placed on a judgment of this Court dated 9.5.2007 in Biswajit Saha and others v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology (Deemed University) and others, CWP No. 3197 of 2007, whereby the students who had been rusticated were allowed to join classes in the next academic session pending criminal trial on the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard also to the fact that the suspension order had been revoked in case of one of the students and the Committee had made a recommendation that expulsion of the petitioners be withdrawn having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the recommendation. 14. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the judgment relied upon was distinguishable and the Punjab University Rules were not applicable in view of office order issued by the University and rules framed by the University under the heading "Admission to examinations". As per extract of the rules handed over at the time of hearing, Rule 3 which has been relied upon is as under : "3. As per extract of the rules handed over at the time of hearing, Rule 3 which has been relied upon is as under : "3. The Vice Chancellor shall have the power to exclude any candidate from examination permanently or for a specific period in the following situation, if he is satisfied that such a candidate is not a fit and proper person to be admitted thereto. If a candidate, after admission to an examination, commits an immoral act or is discovered to have committed an immoral act, which, in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor, is such that had it come to his knowledge in time, they would have excluded him from the examination. The Vice Chancellor may : (i) Cancel his/her candidature for that examination and order that his/her result be not declared and the result be filed; OR (ii) disqualify him for a specified period. In such case before the matter is referred to the Vice- Chancellor for a final decision, the Registrar/Controller of examinations shall initiate proceedings and issue proper notice etc. to the candidate." We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The question for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed for denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners or on the ground that period of rustication was beyond the period specified d under the rules. Before we proceed to answer the question in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to certain settled principles of law : (I) The expression "reasonable opportunity" does not have any fixed content and is flexible depending upon a given situation. Interference on ground of denial of reasonable opportunity is permissible only if prejudice is caused on account of such denial. In Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260, certain students were expelled for two academic sessions for the misconduct of visiting the girls hostel. It was observed that the matter being delicate and no enquiry being feasible, a just and reasonable plan of enquiry was required to be devised. An Enquiry Committee of three independent members of the staff who separately recorded the statements of the girls without giving any opportunity of cross examination to the delinquent students, was found to be suitable. It was observed that the matter being delicate and no enquiry being feasible, a just and reasonable plan of enquiry was required to be devised. An Enquiry Committee of three independent members of the staff who separately recorded the statements of the girls without giving any opportunity of cross examination to the delinquent students, was found to be suitable. In Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 2725, it was observed that requirement of hearing has to be as per natural justice, which requires an accusation to be made known and opportunity given but natural justice was "no unruly horse, no lurking land mine" and its unnatural expansion without reference to realities can be "exasperating". In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. v. B. Karunakar etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074, it was observed : ".....The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case." (II) Proceedings for rustication can be taken simultaneously with the pendency of a criminal trial on the analogy on which disciplinary proceedings in a service matter can be taken during pendency of a criminal trial. In State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144, it was observed that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental case can go on simultaneously as departmental proceedings, to maintain discipline, and required to be completed expeditiously. (III) Degree of proof required in a disciplinary proceedings is not the same as in a criminal trial. Departmental action can be based on an inference from the evidence and circumstances on the basis of probabilities as held in Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, AIR 2005 SC 570. (IV) A penal statute which creates a new offence may not be retrospective but one which creates a disability can be retrospective. An action can be authorised based on past conduct and no person has a right to say that a past wrongful act cannot be subject to further action even under a new law/rule. (IV) A penal statute which creates a new offence may not be retrospective but one which creates a disability can be retrospective. An action can be authorised based on past conduct and no person has a right to say that a past wrongful act cannot be subject to further action even under a new law/rule. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) v. Vishnu Ramchandra, AIR 1961 SC 307 observing : "....Penal statutes which create new offences are always prospective, but penal statutes which create disabilities, though ordinarily interpreted prospectively, are some times interpreted retrospectively when there is a clear intendment that they are to be applied to past events." "There are, however, statutes which create no new punishment, but authorise some action based on past conduct. To such statutes, if expressed in language showing retrospective operation, the principle is not applied. As Lord Coleridge, C.J, observed during the course of arguments in Rex v. Birwistle Etc. JJ. (1889) 58 LJ MC 158 : "Scores of Acts are retrospective, and may without express words be taken to be retrospective, since they are passed to supply a cure to an existing evil." ".....No man has such a vested right in his past crimes and their consequences as would entitle him to insist that in no future legislation shall any regard whatever be had to his previous history." (V) Jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and may not be exercised even if the impugned order is erroneous if substantial justice is done. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889. 16. In the present case, as per averments in para 2 of the preliminary objections in the reply filed on behalf of the College, enquiry was duly conducted by the three Professors of the Institute, who gave their report against the petitioners. The report was considered by the College Council, which recommended their rustication. The matter was further reviewed by the College Council and the order of rustication was reiterated. In paras 11 and 12 of the reply it has been mentioned that the petitioners were on the run and were not coming to the college after 26.9.2006 and they did not join the enquiry nor they made any representation prior to the order of rustication. In paras 11 and 12 of the reply it has been mentioned that the petitioners were on the run and were not coming to the college after 26.9.2006 and they did not join the enquiry nor they made any representation prior to the order of rustication. Petitioner No. 2 was arrested and was in custody. Names of the petitioners were mentioned in the FIR/supplementary statement. The order of rustication was forwarded to the Registrar of the University and further review could be done only by the Vice Chancellor. 17. In the reply on behalf of the University dated 4.8.2007, it was stated that since the matter was sub-judice, no decision was taken immediately and the matter was placed before the Senate in the light of contention that no action was being taken by the University at the time of hearing on 12.7.2007. The Senate took a decision keeping in mind the seriousness of the offence limiting the period of rustication. The period of rustication prescribed in Punjab University Rules was not applicable to the present case. 18. The rules relating to rustication and expulsion in Chapter XVI of the Punjab University Calendar relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, inter- alia, make following provisions : (i) Rustication debars appearance in University examinations during the academic year but rejoining of classes under the following academic year depends on the permission of the Principal (Para 6). (ii) Expulsion of a student debars him for appearance in any university examination during the academic year and also the next following year (Para 7). (iii) The student expelled from a college cannot be readmitted to the same or any other college without the sanction of the Syndicate irrespective of the time limit (Para 7). 19. It cannot, thus, be argued that on expiry of a period of one year, a student who has been rusticated/expelled, acquires a right to rejoin the college on expiry of one year. Our conclusions can be summed up as under : (i) The impugned order was not liable to be interfered with on the ground that the petitioners were denied opportunity of being heard. The College devised an appropriate procedure having regard to the fact that the petitioners were wanted in a criminal case and were not available. The facts were duly cross-checked by a team of independent Professors and involvement of the petitioners was found. The College devised an appropriate procedure having regard to the fact that the petitioners were wanted in a criminal case and were not available. The facts were duly cross-checked by a team of independent Professors and involvement of the petitioners was found. Thus, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. Pendency of criminal case was not abar to interference of the involvement of the petitioners being drawn. The College Council also agreed with the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee. (ii) The report of the Senior Superintendent of Police relied upon on behalf of the petitioners could not be a ground to assume that case against the petitioners was false, particularly when contrary reports by higher officers had been submitted and the petitioners had been duly challaned in a criminal case. In any case, the College authorities were entitled to reach their reasonable conclusion independently (sic) a given case, subsequent hearing can be required to be given but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not considered necessary to do so. (iii) Even if the rules of Punjab University are held to be applicable, though rustication is for one year, expulsion is provided for two years. There is further provision for permission for admission being refused. In effect, the petitioners could legally be debarred, under the said rules, for the period for which they have been debarred. Even otherwise, the Vice Chancellor is competent to provide for issuing a fresh order based on past conduct of the petitioners. In these circumstances, having regard to the facts on record, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on any technical ground. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.