JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Challenge herein is to the denial of admission to the petitioner in 4th Semester of Post Graduate Degree Course, in English subject by the 2nd respondent. 2. The facts not in controversy are that the petitioner was a student of M.A. English, in Netaji Subhash Chander Bose Memorial (NSCBM), Post Graduate Degree College, Hamirpur. He was an outstanding sportsman. After qualifying the 1st and 2nd Semester examination during the academic year 2006-07, he sought admission in 3rd Semester in the month of October, 2007, he got himself involved in a criminal case and as a result thereof FIR No.456 of 2007, dated 31.10.2007, under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against him in Police Station, Hamirpur. 3. Consequently, notice Annexure A-1 dated 31.10.2007 came to be issued, whereby the petitioner was informed that on account of his involvement in an incident of violence in the College premises, resulting in damage to the property belonging to the college, he has been rusticated from the College with immediate effect and that he was required to appear before the Disciplinary Committee to explain his position in this behalf on 5.11.2007. The petitioner though not received the show cause notice Annexure A-1, however, had been informed about the contents thereof over telephone. Accordingly, he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on the date fixed. 4. As per further case of the petitioner, although he appeared in the 3rd Semester examination in the capacity of a regular student of NSCBM, College, Hamirpur, yet not granted admission in 4th Semester of the course by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. Also that he kept on visiting the office of second respondent regularly in connection with his admission in 4th Semester, however, on each and every occasions he was informed that his case for admission is under consideration. Though, the petitioner ran from pillar to post for seeking admission in 4th Semester, but to no avail and being faced with such circumstances, he had served a legal notice (Annexure A-2) upon the 2nd respondent. The same was not replied by the said respondent. 5. Though, the petitioner ran from pillar to post for seeking admission in 4th Semester, but to no avail and being faced with such circumstances, he had served a legal notice (Annexure A-2) upon the 2nd respondent. The same was not replied by the said respondent. 5. According to the petitioner, during the course of hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, while explaining his position, it was made clear that he was not at all involved in any act of violence and rather implicated falsely at the instance of a person, who even was not a college student. Also that he has been denied the admission without holding any inquiry and without affording an opportunity of being heard. Such action on the part of the respondents is stated to be against the principle of natural justice. 6. On the other hand, the defence of the respondent as emerges from the reply to the writ petition is that the petitioner after having completed 1st and 2nd Semester of M.A. English was granted admission in M.A. 3rd Semester. In the month of July, August and September, his attendance in the class was zero and as such on 7th of September, 2007, the Lecturer incharge had recommended to strike off his name from the roll of the college. The 2nd respondent had approved the recommendation so made and as such the name of the petitioner stood struck off from the roll of the College w.e.f. 7.9.2007. The abstracts of attendance Register Annexure R-1, and recommendation, Annexure R-2, made by the lecturer incharge for striking of his name from the roll of the college have been relied upon to substantiate the plea so raised in the reply. It is further pointed out that since the petitioner was involved in an incident of violence in the college campus and against which an FIR was registered in Police Station, Hamirpur, therefore, the Disciplinary Committee pursuant to the show cause notice issued against him had recommended his expulsion from the college and not to re-admit him in its meeting held on 5.11.2007, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Thus, pursuant to the decision so taken, he stood expelled from the college w.e.f. 5.11.2007. There was thus no question of his appearing in MA 3rd Semester examination in the capacity of a regular student of the college. Thus, pursuant to the decision so taken, he stood expelled from the college w.e.f. 5.11.2007. There was thus no question of his appearing in MA 3rd Semester examination in the capacity of a regular student of the college. His name also stood struck off from the roll of College in the month of September 2007, therefore, his examination form was not forwarded to the Himachal Pradesh, University. In support of this aspect of the matter, the detail of the students appeared in M.A. 3rd Semester examination Annexure R-3 has been pressed into service. 7. On completion of records, this petition came to be listed for final hearing on 16.3.2012 when the following order was passed:- " Heard for sometime. 2. Undisputedly, with the passage of time, the relief sought vide prayer A is not available at this stage to the petitioner. It is only prayer B in the writ petition need consideration. Prima-facie there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner was giving due opportunity of being heard, pursuant to the notice Annexure P-1 issued against him by the 2nd respondent. 3. Therefore, in the light of the submissions made in para 5(C) of the writ petition, the record leading to expulsion of the petitioner from Government College, Hamirpur is required to be perused. Let the 2nd respondent to produce the record of this case before this Court on the next date. 4. Post for further arguments on 20th April, 2012. xxxxx" 8. Consequently, the record was produced before this Court, however, incomplete, hence the order, which reads as follows, was passed on the next date:- "Although, record pertaining to show cause notices issued to the petitioner for his appearance before the Disciplinary Authority has been produced, but the record pertaining to the inquiry, if any, conducted and the report given by such authority has not been produced. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted time to produce the same. Post on 27th April, 2012." 9. On the date so fixed, the record was produced, which after hearing arguments in this matter was retained. 10. It is seen that this Court in its order dated 16.3.2012, had held that the relief covered under prayer A is not available to the petitioner at this belated stage. Learned counsel representing the petitioner being fair enough had also not pressed the same during the course of arguments. 11. 10. It is seen that this Court in its order dated 16.3.2012, had held that the relief covered under prayer A is not available to the petitioner at this belated stage. Learned counsel representing the petitioner being fair enough had also not pressed the same during the course of arguments. 11. The claim in the writ petition has thus been restricted only qua the relief covered under prayer B. 12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner has mainly emphasised that the action on the part of the 2nd respondent in not granting the admission to the petitioner in 4th Semester is violative of principle of natural justice as according to the learned counsel neither any inquiry was conducted nor the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of being heard. 13. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, while repelling the contentions so made on behalf of the petitioner, has strenuously argued that the petitioner was expelled from the roll of the college after conducting an inquiry and affording him due opportunity of being heard. 14. I have analysed the rival contentions vis-à-vis the record of the case. 15. Undisputedly, the petitioner is involved in a criminal case registered against him in Police Station Hamirpur, under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC vide FIR No.456 of 2007 dated 31.10.2007, pursuant to an incident of violence, which took place in the College campus. Consequently, he was rusticated from the college with immediate effect and informed accordingly vide notice issued on the same day i.e. 31.10.2007, Annexure A-1 to the writ petition and also called upon to appear on 5.11.2007 before the Disciplinary Committee to explain his position in writing. It is admitted so even by the petitioner also. Not only this, but as per his own version, he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 5.11.2007, the date fixed and explained his position. The record produced during the course of hearing reveals that the Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on 5.11.2007 after hearing the petitioner, had taken the following decision:- "The Discipline Committee has decided to take the following decisions after enquiring, verifying and hearing the students involved in the students clash:- (1) Mr. Anil Mankotia MA III (Eng) R.No. 65 has been found involved in the students clash. Anil Mankotia MA III (Eng) R.No. 65 has been found involved in the students clash. Earlier also he found involved in the violence in the college campus and FIR has also been framed against him in the police Stn. It was also found that his name has been struck off from the college rolls on 7/9/07 and he did not seek readmission within the specified period. It was also found that his lectures statement is Zero in the class. Hence he ceases to be a regular student and his entry is banned in the college campus. It is also decided that he should not be allowed for re-admission and to sit in the annual exams." 16. It is thus seen from the above decision that the petitioner ceased to be a student of the college and his entry in the College campus is also banned. He was also recommended not to be readmitted in the college, in future. Not only this, but prior to taking the above decision, the name of the petitioner had already been scored out from the roll of the college on 7.9.2007 on account of there being his attendance zero in the class for the month of July/August, 2007 as is evident from the perusal of the abstracts of the attendance Register, Annexure R-1 and recommendation of the Lecturer incharge, Annexure R-2. Thus it lies ill in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that he had appeared in the examination of 3rd semester of the course i.e. M.A. English in the capacity of a regular student. The detail of the students, who had appeared in this examination, Annexure R-3 makes it crystal clear that the petitioner did not appear in the examination of 3rd Semester of the Course, in question. 17. There is no reason to disbelieve this part of the respondents case, particularly when the petitioner has miserably failed to place on record any tangible and contemporaneous evidence satisfying this Court that he had actually appeared in the said examination in the capacity of a regular student. 17. There is no reason to disbelieve this part of the respondents case, particularly when the petitioner has miserably failed to place on record any tangible and contemporaneous evidence satisfying this Court that he had actually appeared in the said examination in the capacity of a regular student. Thus when the petitioner did not at all appear in the examination of 3rd Semester, it would not be improper to conclude that he has no legal right to seek admission in the 4th Semester of the course unless and until the penalty of rustication from the College imposed upon him is not reviewed or set aside by the competent authority. 18. Be it stated that the petitioner prior to taking the decision qua his rustication from the College by the Disciplinary Committee was involved in four more criminal cases i.e. FIR No.426 of 2005 dated 23.12.2005 under Sections 341, 323 IPC, FIR No. 301/06 dated 22.8.2006, under Sections 341, 323, 34 IPC, FIR No. 300/06, dated 22.8.2006, under Sections 341, 323, 34 IPC and 290/07, dated 4.7.2007, under Section 341, 323, 34 IPC. However, it is seen from the record that in 3 cases, he stands acquitted from the charges, whereas the 4th one was compromised. As regards the latest FIR i.e. 456 of 2007 dated 31.10.2007, consequent upon the registration whereof, he has been rusticated from the college, is concerned, the same is still pending trial. Apart from it, the petitioner is even an accused in FIR No. 245/08 dated 21.8.2008, under Sections 147,148,149, 341, 323 and 504 IPC, FIR No. 295/10, dated 26.8.2010, under Sections 147,148,149, 341, 323 and 506 IPC, FIR No. 287/08, dated 21.8.2010, under Section 147,148,149, 342, 307, 452, 506, 34 IPC and 27-54-59 Arms Act, FIR No. 299/10, dated 31.8.2010, under Sections 341,323,34 IPC, FIR No.31/11 dated 7.2.2011 under Section 147,148,149, 323 and 506 IPC, FIR No. 150/11, dated 10./7.2011 under Section 353 and 332 IPC and FIR No. 41/12, dated 11.2.2012, under Section 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC also, however, the same are still pending trial. No doubt, as per settled legal principles, in the criminal administration of justice, an offender has to be presumed innocent unless and until held guilty by a competent Court after holding trial against him, however, the registration of such a large number of criminal cases against the petitioner who is none else but a student, itself speaks in plenty about his acts, conduct and behaviour. 19. Now if coming to the controversy i.e. refusal to grant admission in M.A. English 4th Semester allegedly without holding any inquiry and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the record reveals that as per his own admission, he was present before the Disciplinary Committee on 5.11.2007 in person. 20. As per the notice Annexure A-1, the petitioner was required to submit his explanation, if any, in writing. I could not lay my hands on any record showing that he had furnished his explanation in writing or sought time to furnish the same or that the opportunity though was sought by him, however, declined by the Committee. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was heard and submissions, if any, that he has been implicated falsely in the criminal case, seems to have been made orally. The facts, however, remain that the petitioner was present before the Disciplinary Committee and the decision that he ceased to be a student of the College and was not allowed to enter the college campus nor entitled to seek re-admission was taken by the Committee after hearing him. 21. The decision so taken was required to be conveyed to the petitioner enabling him thereby to seek remedy, if any available against the same, in accordance with law. The respondents, however, have failed to produce any record suggesting that the decision so taken was conveyed to the petitioner. There is also nothing to believe that the decision so taken by the Committee was announced there and then in his presence. Had the petitioner been informed about the decision so taken against him or in the knowledge thereof, he would have not served the 2nd respondent with a legal notice and rather resorted to the remedy, if any, available to him, in accordance with law. 22. Not only this, but the 2nd respondent have even failed to respond to the legal notice, served upon him by the petitioner. 22. Not only this, but the 2nd respondent have even failed to respond to the legal notice, served upon him by the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the legal notice issued to them was not received. The minimum requirement of observance of principle of natural justice would have met had the second respondent been responded to the legal notice served upon him by the petitioner. 23. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the only inescapable conclusion would be that before taking decision to rusticate the petitioner from the college, he was heard by the Disciplinary Committee. However, the decision so taken was not conveyed to him. He is now come to know about the decision so taken during the course of hearing of this writ petition. He is thus at liberty to resort to remedy, if any, available to him against the decision so taken against him by the Disciplinary Committee and also to seek redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, including admission in 3rd/4th semester of M.A. English, in accordance with law. 24. In view of the reasons herein above, this petition stands finally disposed of, however, without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to seek remedy, if any available to him qua his surviving grievances, in accordance with law by making a representation/filing an appeal before the competent authority and in that event such authority shall take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt thereof, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 25. In view of the disposal of the writ petition in the aforesaid manner, pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 26. The record of the College be returned to the office of learned Advocate General for further transmission to the quarter concerned.