Order In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of punishment issued by the Registrar, Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad, whereby the wards of the petitioners have been expelled and debarred from all academic activities and hostel accommodation for the Academic Year 2007-08 on the allegation of ragging of one Piyush Kumar Raghav, a First Year Student of the Respondent-Institute. The said act is an act of indiscipline falling under Category-I of Rule 4(I)(b) of the Rules Governing Maintenance of Discipline and Grievance Procedure. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that before passing the said penal order, no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the concerned students and there has been flagrant violation of principle of natural justice. The entire proceeding was closed within a short span of four hours on 2nd August, 2007. The order of expulsion has been purportedly passed under Disciplinary Action of Category-I. But the respondents have acted in complete defiance of the prescribed Rules and Procedure. The order has been passed by the Respondent No.3, who is not competent to pass the order of punishment of expulsion, falling within Category-I of the. Disciplinary Action. The order is, thus, without jurisdiction. The punishment imposed on the wards of the petitioners is also shockingly disproportionate to the act of the alleged misconduct. 3. It has further been stated that the complainant withdrew the complaint in writing. He also felt that the punishment is harsh and requested the respondents to accept withdrawal of the complaint and recall the order of punishment. Wards of the petitioners also tendered apology and regretted by saying that their behaviour was impulsive and they had no intention to cause any inconvenience to Piyush Kumar Raghav. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been admitted that no notice was issued to the wards of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. However, it has been stated that they were heard in person• in the enquiry made on the complaint of Piyush Kumar Raghav. Piyush Kumar Raghav subsequently withdrew the complaint. 5. Mr. It has been admitted that no notice was issued to the wards of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. However, it has been stated that they were heard in person• in the enquiry made on the complaint of Piyush Kumar Raghav. Piyush Kumar Raghav subsequently withdrew the complaint. 5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the specific provision has been made for dealing with such complaint in Chapter-7 of the Rules Governing Maintenance, Discipline and Grievance Procedure and awarding punishment in Disciplinary Action of Category-I, which includes expulsion of student for all time or for a stated period. Head of the Department (H.O.D.) is not empowered to take disciplinary action under Category-I. Learned counsel submitted that in such matter, the Director of the Institute is the competent authority to pass an order of expulsion. The order passed by the H.O.D. is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that before passing an order of punishment under Category-I, notice to show cause on the erring students is imperative. Such punishment cannot be awarded without giving them proper opportunity of hearing. The said provision has not been followed and the principle of natural justice has been violated. The petitioners' wards were not informed about the complaint filed against them. They were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel contended that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, violative of prescribed rules as well as principle of natural justice and is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that though it is an admitted position that no notice to show cause was given to the petitioners' wards and the complainant had withdrawn the complaint subsequently, yet an enquiry was made on the complaint filed by the complainant-student Piyush Kumar Raghav and the decision for the said punishment has been taken by the competent authority. 7. Having heard learned counsel and considered the facts and material on record, I find that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without giving any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' wards. The impugned decision has been taken in gross violation of the provisions of the prescribed Rules as well as the principle of natural justice. The impugned order is thus unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 8. The impugned decision has been taken in gross violation of the provisions of the prescribed Rules as well as the principle of natural justice. The impugned order is thus unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 8. Further, the complainant himself has withdrawn the complaint and has requested the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners' wards. The petitioners' wards also felt sorry and tendered apology. In order to avoid further hostile situation and bring harmony amongst the students as well, the respondents should not have taken the said punitive decision. 9. Considering the above and also considering that the complainant-student has withdrawn the complaint and the wards of the petitioners have already tendered apology to the complainant-student as well as to the Respondent-Institute, the impugned order is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. 10. Nonetheless, the petitioners shall be more vigilant about future behaviour of their wards. They shall ensure to the institute that their wards shall not enter into any deliberate act of indiscipline. In the interest of the institute, the petitioners and their wards are directed to furnish joint undertaking before the Director, Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad, Respondent No.2, assuring that they shall maintain the discipline of the institute properly and follow the rules and regulations and shall not show any unbecoming behaviour in future.