JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Vide this judgment, I intend to decide OWP No. 1723/2013, OWP No. 1724/2013 & OWP No. 468/2014. OWP No. 1723/2013, has been filed by Talab Hussain & Mohd. Tazeem Ahmad; OWP No. 1724/2013 by Sunandini Sharma and OWP No. 468/2014, by Cathleen Kour, Marvi Salathia, Mohd. Sardar Bhatti, Manik Sharma & Rohit Bharati. The aforementioned writ petitions challenge the same orders, i.e., dated 13.09.2013 as well as 09.12.2013 arising out of the same incident though in some cases imposing different punishment. Therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided by a common order. The plea in OWP No. 1723/2013, is for quashing order: “i) Annexure 'D' dated 13.09.2013 whereby petitioner No. 1 was rusticated pending enquiry petitioner No. 2 banned from entering the university campus; ii) Annexure 'G' dated 09.12.2013 whereby petitioner No. 1 and others were rusticated for a period of one academic year, i.e., 2013-14 and petitioner No. 2 and others were banned for a period of one year, i.e., upto 13.09.2014; iii) Also for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue with their studies as also to permit them to appear in the examination commencing 17.12.2013;” Prayer in OWP No. 1724/2013, is for the issuance of a writ of “i) Certiorari for quashing order Annexure C dated 13.09.2013 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be suspended and her entry banned in the University campus till the pendency of the enquiry; ii) Certiorari for quashing order Annexure G dated 09.12.2013 whereby the petitioner was rusticated for a period of one academic year i.e. 2013-14; iii) Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue her studies in the University of Jammu as also to allow her to appear in the examination commencing 18.12.2013.” Likewise, prayer in OWP No. 468/2014, is for the issuance of a writ of: “i) Certiorari for quashing order Annexure J dated 13.09.2013 suspending and banning the entry of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 along with others in the University campus, rusticating petitioner No. 3 and another pending enquiry as also banning the entry of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in the university campus along with others; ii) Certiorari for quashing order Annexure M dated 09.12.2013 rusticating petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 along with others in the University campus, rusticating petitioner No. 3 and another pending enquiry as also banning the entry of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in the university campus along with others; ii) Certiorari for quashing order Annexure M dated 09.12.2013 rusticating petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and banning the entry of petitioner No. 4 for a period of one academic year i.e. 2013-14 as also banning the entry of petitioner No. 5 till further orders 9 iii) Mandamus for commanding the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners who had been allowed to appear in the examination under orders of the High Court dated 27.11.2013 in OWP No. 1377/2013 as also to allow them to continue their studies in the University of Jammu and to permit them to appear in the examination commencing shortly thereafter; iv) Mandamus commanding the respondents to take immediate action on the complaints Annexure F as also Annexure G, both dated 12.09.2013.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned orders are in violation of Rule 7(b) and Rule 11 of Chapter XX of the University Statute. Rule 7(b) and Rule 11 of Chapter XX of the University Statute are reproduced hereunder:- "Rule 7(b) and Rule 11 of Chapter XX of the University Statute: 7(b) The Inquiry Authority shall consider the written explanation and verbal statements of the charge-sheeted student and his witnesses, if any. The Inquiry Authority may also require any other person, who has knowledge of the incident, to testify before it in the presence of the charge-sheeted student. The summaries of the statements of the charge-sheeted student and witnesses shall be made by the Inquiry Authority which shall be read over to the concerned witnesses and their signatures obtained in support of their correctness. 11. The Discipline Committee may, according to the nature and gravity of offence: i) expel a student; or ii) rusticate a student for a period not less than one academic year; and/or iii) impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 11. The Discipline Committee may, according to the nature and gravity of offence: i) expel a student; or ii) rusticate a student for a period not less than one academic year; and/or iii) impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/-; and/or iv) debar a student permanently from residing in a Hostel or from participating in a sports or any other activity of the University; and/or v) impose any other punishment which, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee, shall prevent the student concerned from repeating acts of indiscipline: Provided that before awarding punishment, the charge-sheeted student shall be given an opportunity to explain in writing within five days of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him by the Discipline Committee. The Discipline Committee shall consider the explanation, if any, submitted by the student. The Discipline Authority shall have a right to be present at this meeting of the Discipline Committee. It shall not, however, be entitled to vote." 3. A perusal of Rule 7(b) reveals that the enquiry authority can require any person who has knowledge of the incident to testify before it in the presence of the charge sheeted student and that summaries of the statements of the charge sheeted student and the witnesses are to be made by the enquiry authority, read over to the concerned witnesses and their signatures obtained in support of their correctness. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that in exercise of the power under Rule 7(b) referred to above, the Enquiry Authority recorded statements of various Professors and Students of the University but the same was not done in the presence of the petitioners and neither were copies of their statements supplied to the petitioners nor they were given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the punishments imposed are vitiated on account of non compliance with the principles of Natural Justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to deny the aforementioned factual position. Apparently, statements of various persons were recorded not only behind the back of the petitioners, they were also not supplied copies of the said statements nor were given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to deny the aforementioned factual position. Apparently, statements of various persons were recorded not only behind the back of the petitioners, they were also not supplied copies of the said statements nor were given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. Thus, the aforementioned action is in clear violation of Rule 7(b) as also the principles of Natural Justice as it is well settled law that no person can be condemned unheard. 5. Learned counsel further submit that in terms of proviso to Rule 11, before awarding punishment, the charge sheeted student is to be given an opportunity to explain in writing within 5 days of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him by the Discipline Committee and further that the Discipline Committee shall consider the explanation if any submitted by the student. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that even proviso to Rule 11 was violated as no show cause notice was given to the students with regard to the punishment proposed to be imposed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2013 i.e. Annexure M (in OWP No. 468/2014), Annexure G (in OWP No. 1723/2013) & Annexure G (in OWP No. 1724/2013) respectively is also in violation of Rule 11 as a perusal of the show cause notice i.e. Annexure Q at page No. 67 and 68 in the case of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 (in OWP No. 468/2014) & Annexure F qua petitioner in OWP No. 1724/2013, reveals that the same was not qua the proposed punishment of rustication. Same is the plea on behalf of petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013. Thus the show cause notice is in derogation of Rule 11 which requires that before awarding punishment, a charge sheeted student is to be given an opportunity to explain in writing within 5 days of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him by the discipline committee. Thus the show cause notice is in derogation of Rule 11 which requires that before awarding punishment, a charge sheeted student is to be given an opportunity to explain in writing within 5 days of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him by the discipline committee. In the absence of petitioner No. 1 and 2 in OWP No. 468/2014, petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013 and petitioner in OWP No. 1724/2014, having been given a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why the punishment of rustication be not imposed upon them, the punishment of rustication qua the said petitioners is unsustainable on the aforesaid ground. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that there is no challenge in the writ petition to the enquiry report as well as the report of the Discipline Authority. The fact "remains that the enquiry report as well as report of the discipline authority culminated in the passing of order dated 09.12.2013 i.e. Annexure G, G & M (in OWP No. 1723/2013), (OWP No. 1724/2013) & (OWP No. 468/2014) respectively which has been impugned in the instant writ petitions. Therefore the objection is without merit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that a perusal of Annexure A i.e. item No. 103.63 of the proceedings of the University Syndicate dated 13.03.2014 reveals that the action of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Jammu i.e. order dated 09.12.2013 rusticating two students, namely M.S. Bhatti of the Department of Political Science and Talib Hussain of the Department of Law, suspending/banning entry of Sakshi of Department of Political Science, Sunandhini of Law School, Marvi Salathia of Department of Political Science, Kathleen Kour of Law School, banning entry Manik Sharma of Department of Political Science, Tazim Choudhary of Dogra Law College, Nizai of Commerce College, Akram, Rohit Bharathi had been confirmed by the Syndicate but perusal of order Annexure G, G & M dated 09.12.2013 in OWP No. 1723/2013, 1724/2013 & 468/2014, respectively at page No. 56 in OWP No. 468/2014, revealed that 6 students including petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in OWP No. 468/2014, petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013 and petitioner in OWP No. 1724/2013 had been rusticated. 1 to 3 in OWP No. 468/2014, petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013 and petitioner in OWP No. 1724/2013 had been rusticated. Learned counsel submit that in the absence of confirmation by the Syndicate of order dated 09.12.2013 rusticating the aforementioned 6 students, the order of rustication qua petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in OWP No. 468/2014 and petitioner in OWP No. 1724/2013 was unsustainable in terms of Regulation No. 13 of Chapter XX of the regulations pertaining to discipline of students of the teaching departments of the university. However, order of rustication qua petitioner No. 3 in OWP No. 468/2014 and petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013, having been approved by the Syndicate vide proceedings Annexure A dated 13.03.2014 attached to the reply in OWP No. 468/2014 renders the said plea unavailable qua the said petitioners. Regulation 13 is reproduction hereunder:- “Regulation 13 of Chapter XX regarding discipline of students of the Teaching Departments of the University Regulations:- (a) All cases of expulsion or rustication shall be reported to the Syndicate for confirmation. If the order of expulsion/rustication is not confirmed by the Syndicate, the student concerned shall be admitted to the concerned Department/Hostel, if he so desires. (b) If the order of expulsion/rustication is not confirmed by the Syndicate, the period for which the student was under suspension shall be counted as attendance. In case the order of expulsion or rustication is confirmed, the order will have effect in such cases from the date the student was not allowed to attend the classes or reside in the Hostel.” 8. On the basis of the aforementioned regulation, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the rustication of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in OWP No. 468/2014 and petitioner of OWP No. 1724/2013, as mentioned in order Annexure M at page No. 56 in OWP No. 468/2014 and Annexure G at page No. 84 of OWP No. 1724/2013, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 9. A perusal of Regulation 13 reveals that all cases of expulsion/rustication are to be placed before the Syndicate for confirmation and if the order of expulsion/rustication is not confirmed by the Syndicate, the student is to be admitted to the concerned Department, if he so desires. 10. 9. A perusal of Regulation 13 reveals that all cases of expulsion/rustication are to be placed before the Syndicate for confirmation and if the order of expulsion/rustication is not confirmed by the Syndicate, the student is to be admitted to the concerned Department, if he so desires. 10. It is apparent that in terms of Regulation 13 it is mandatory for all cases of expulsion/rustication to be placed before the Syndicate for decision. However the same has not been done except in the case of M.S. Bhatti and Talab Hussain i.e. petitioner No. 3 in OWP No. 468/2014 and petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013. The order of rustication having been approved by the Syndicate, aforesaid ground is not available qua petitioner No. 3 in OWP No. 468/2014 and petitioner No. 1 in OWP No. 1723/2013. 11. In view of the submissions noted above, learned counsel for petitioners submit that the punishments imposed are vitiated on account of violation of Rule 7(b), 11 & 13 of the University Statute as well as the principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel submit that in the circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly should be quashed. No other point has been argued. 12. A university is a temple of learning. It is not a place for indulging in lawlessness. It must be unequivocally understood by all concerned that the Rule of Law cannot be violated, but if the same is violated, consequences for its violation will ensue as per law. Having so observed, the apparent violation of Rule 7(b), 11 and 13 of the Regulations, as well as the fact that pursuant to interim orders passed by this court on different dates, the petitioners were allowed to take the examination of the respective courses in which they were studying subject to the outcome of the writ petition, considerable period of time having elapsed etc. cannot be ignored. 13. Accordingly while setting aside the decision of the Syndicate on item No. 103.63, dated 13.03.2014, a direction is issued to place the matter before the Syndicate for decision afresh w.r.t. the punishments imposed vide orders i.e. Annexure G, G & M, dated 09.12.2013 (in OWP No. 1723/2013, 1724/2013 & 468/2014). 14. cannot be ignored. 13. Accordingly while setting aside the decision of the Syndicate on item No. 103.63, dated 13.03.2014, a direction is issued to place the matter before the Syndicate for decision afresh w.r.t. the punishments imposed vide orders i.e. Annexure G, G & M, dated 09.12.2013 (in OWP No. 1723/2013, 1724/2013 & 468/2014). 14. While directing the Syndicate to reconsider the action to be taken qua the impugned order i.e. Annexure G, G&M, dated 09.12.2013 (in OWP No. 1723/2013, 1724/2013 & 468/2014 respectively) it is expected that the Syndicate would take a sympathetic view by taking into account the aspects noted above as well as the suffering which the petitioners have already undergone on account of the order of rustication etc., the fact that the petitioners are youngsters at the threshold of their careers, that under the interim orders of the Court they were allowed to sit in the examination conducted by the University as also that there is apparent violation of Regulation 7(b), 11 & 13 of the University Statute. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the last meeting of the Syndicate was held in the month of March 2015 therefore it may not be possible to convene a meeting of the Syndicate at a short notice. Learned counsel prays that adequate time be granted to place the matter before the Syndicate for its consideration and passing of appropriate orders in the matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners state that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Syndicate be directed to take a decision at the earliest since the career of the petitioner is at stake. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents' states that every effort shall be made for placing the matter before the Syndicate and for taking of decision in respect thereto at the earliest possible and that till taking of decision in the matter by the Syndicate, petitioners will be allowed to pursue the courses to which they stand admitted and will also be allowed to take admission in the next higher class for which a provisional degree certificate would be issued to the petitioners as per University Statute. Learned counsel for the respondents further undertakes to ensure that the result of the petitioners of OWP No. 1723/2013 and OWP No. 1724/2013, would be declared within 2 weeks from today in case the same has snot already been declared. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the Syndicate would not take a decision in the matter for a considerable period of time, resultantly they would suffer, therefore directions be issued for taking decision within a stipulated period of time. It is made clear that in case appropriate decision is not taken in the matter by the Syndicate within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the impugned orders shall be deemed to have been quashed entailing consequences in accordance with law. Disposed of along with all connected CMAs.