ORDER Seeking quashing of letters dated 08.10.2014, 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 awarding punishment of debarrment to the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners are 3rd year students in different courses in the Birla Institute of Technology. An incident took place in the night of 20/21.09.2014 and the petitioners, on 22.09.2014, were directed to appear before the Eqnuiry Committee. Unaware of the nature of allegation against them, the petitioners who were not served a chargememo, were required to answer certain question to which they gave a written reply. The petitioners denied their involvement in the incident however, they have been punished by the orders contained in the impugned letters. A counter-affidavit/supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Birla Institute of Technology by which a copy of the enquiry report has been brought on record. It is stated that the petitioners were actively involved in the incident which continued till midnight and which was spread over three places. 2. Seriously objecting to the punishment awarded to the petitioners vide orders dated 08.10.2014, 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that, impugned punishments have been awarded to the petitioners in gross violation of rules of Natural Justice. It is submitted that, without issuing a show-cause notice or serving a chargesheet, on the basis of an alleged enquiry conducted by the respondent-Institute, the petitioners have been punished, arbitrarily. It is stated that on 22.09.2014, the petitioners were called when they submitted their response which forms part of the writ petition vide Annexure1 series. Basing his submission on the statements given by the petitioners, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that, the statement given by the petitioners and the record produced by the respondent-Institute do not lead to a conclusion that such grave misconduct was committed by the petitioners so as the warrant award of punishment of debarrment of four semesters with four black dots to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and award of punishment of debarrment of two semesters with four black dots to the petitioner no. 2. It is thus contended that punishment to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 for debarrment for four semesters and petitioner no. 2 for debarrment for two semesters are disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioners. 3. As against the above, Mr. 2. It is thus contended that punishment to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 for debarrment for four semesters and petitioner no. 2 for debarrment for two semesters are disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioners. 3. As against the above, Mr. Srijit Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent-Birla Institute of Technology submits that, the manner of occurrence and the gravity of the misconduct were such that a committee of as many as eleven Faculty Members of the institute was constituted who examined several students and recorded a finding of involvement of all the three petitioners in the incident which occurred in the night of 20/21.09.2014. Referring to the supplementary affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that several students have found the petitioners at the place of occurrence. Replying to the submission that the impugned punishments have been awarded in violation of rules of Natural Justice, the learned counsel for the respondents relies on paragraph no. 14 of decision in “T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvaraj and Others Vs. Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College” reported in (1998) 1 E.S.C. 440 (Kant.) and decision in “Hira Nath Mishra and Others, Vs. the principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and another” reported in AIR 1973 SC 1260 and submits that, no fixed format for observing the rules of Natural Justice can be prescribed. 4. A perusal of the enquiry report produced by the respondents discloses active participation of the petitioner no. 1 namely, Diptanshu Shekhar in the occurrence. There is allegation of assaulting one Sourav Prasad by the petitioner no. 1. Though the petitioner no.1 in his written reply has admitted that he slapped the said Sourav Prasad and apologised for the same, several students have stated that the petitioner no. 1 assaulted Sourav Prasad. In view of the fact that a large number of students have assigned active role played by the petitioner no. 1, the plea that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and their statements were recorded behind his back must be rejected. The Enquiry was conducted by eleven senior Faculty Members and there is no allegation of bias against them. The nature of allegation was explained to the petitioner no. 1, is reflected in the apology submitted by him. 1, the plea that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and their statements were recorded behind his back must be rejected. The Enquiry was conducted by eleven senior Faculty Members and there is no allegation of bias against them. The nature of allegation was explained to the petitioner no. 1, is reflected in the apology submitted by him. The plea that the victim Sourav Prasad has been let off lightly by imposing a punishment of “severe warning” though he was also guilty of same degree of misconduct, is liable to be rejected. In the matter of punishment the institute authorities are the judges and the matter falls exclusively within their jurisdiction. No interference is warranted with the award of punishment unless, the punishment is so excessive that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The present is not such a case. A reference to earlier punishment awarded to Sourav Prasad is also irrelevant. The learned counsel for the institute has referred to paragraph 14 in T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvraj case where the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: 14. “…... the manner in which the enquiry should be held cannot be put in a straitjacket formula by issuance of a chargesheet, recording of statements in the presence of students and allowing them to cross-examine such witnesses. When there was an upheaval as a result of the incident and to avoid further in discipline, the Principal had to act immediately and when he did so after ascertaining the facts in the manner best known to him, this Court cannot impose the strict compliance with the principles of natural justice”. 5. It is disclosed in the enquiry report that the petitioner no. 3 namely, Zain Arshed Mallick has taken prominent part in the occurrence however, I do not find any allegation of assault by petitioner no. 3 on the said Sourav Prasad. It is stated that the petitioner no. 3 took the victim Sourav Prasad to the place of occurrence on his bike after he received a call from the petitioner no. 1 and thus, an inference has been drawn by the enquiry committee that he was actively involved in planning and beating of the said Sourav Prasad. I am of the opinion that on the basis of the materials which have been produced in the present proceeding, no such inference of the petitioner no. 1 and thus, an inference has been drawn by the enquiry committee that he was actively involved in planning and beating of the said Sourav Prasad. I am of the opinion that on the basis of the materials which have been produced in the present proceeding, no such inference of the petitioner no. 3 having “actively participated” in any manner in the alleged occurrence can be drawn. In so far as, petitioner no. 2 is concerned, I do not find any reference anywhere in the enquiry report of any role assigned to the petitioner no. 2. Though the enquiry report has been signed by as many as, eleven senior Faculty Members, the fact that merely because petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were present at the place of occurrence no inference can be drawn against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 that they actively participated in the occurrence. It is stated that about 100 students of 2011 batch had gathered at the place of occurrence and they started Marpit with the students of 2012 batch to which the petitioners belong. Though it is stated that the petitioners were identified at the place of occurrence, I do not find any overt act on the part of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and thus, the award of punishment to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 warrants interference and accordingly, order of punishment dated 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 are hereby quashed. In so far as award of punishment to petitioner no. 1 is concerned, in view of serious allegation and the role played by him, no interference is required with award of punishment to him. 6. The writ petition is partly allowed. 7. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 6482 of 2012 also stands disposed of.