Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 470 (UTT)

G. B. Pant University v. Neha Pant

2016-08-12

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. These Appeals are filed by the respondent University in writ petitions, which were filed by the respondents. Respondents are students undergoing B.Tech. in various disciplines. 2. The writ petitions were filed by the respondent/writ petitioners challenging the punishments granted to them by the University. We may take note of the facts in Special Appeal No. 221 of 2016 and, therein, we find that the following punishments have been awarded: “1. Temporary dismissal from University for one semester i.e., Ist Semester 2016-17. 2. Conduct Probation for rest of his degree programme i.e., w.e.f. Ist semester 2016-17 as per the Academic Rules & Regulation of Chapter III Para 47 (2) vi: (d). 3. Severe warning not to repeat such an activity in future” 3. By the impugned decision, the learned Single Judge took the view that, prima facie, the impugned order seems to be without jurisdiction. The contention of the writ petitioners would appear to be that there has been pick and choose, inasmuch as, for same acts of indiscipline lesser punishment has been awarded for some. Reliance is also placed on the academic regulations of the University and it was contended that the punishment could only be awarded by the Vice Chancellor, after considering the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee. It is stated in the order that it is an admitted fact that punishment order is against the provisions, inasmuch as, it is awarded by the Registrar, though the order shows that it is after approval of the Vice Chancellor. The learned Single Judge thought it fit to stay the order. The learned Single Judge also ordered that the respondents shall file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks and listed the case on 05.09.2016 in daily cause list. Aggrieved, the University is before us. 4. We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Arvind Vashisht, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in all these cases. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would complain that the orders, which were impugned, are passed in exercise of the powers of the University to enforce discipline and if such orders are interfered with, it will be difficult for the University to maintain discipline. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in all these cases. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would complain that the orders, which were impugned, are passed in exercise of the powers of the University to enforce discipline and if such orders are interfered with, it will be difficult for the University to maintain discipline. He further contended that though styled as an interim order, it is in the nature of final decision. He would also submit that actually, the Vice Chancellor has taken the decision after considering the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee and it is only communicated by the Registrar. It is also submitted that even the first punishment, namely, temporary dismissal from the University for one semester may not be as harsh as it may appear, as the effect of that punishment is only that the students concerned will be disabled from attending the classes for a semester, but they can clear all the papers within the original period provided they clear the papers and, what is more, they are also enabled to attend the classes after the period of the semester for which the punishment operates is over. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would point out that the admitted allegation would not fall within the provision defining indiscipline and he would also point out that the subjects are technical subjects and if they are not able to attend the classes, it will cause prejudice to them. He would, in fact, have no objection in the stay being limited only to the first punishment without prejudice to his contentions in the writ petitions. In other words, the punishment nos. 2 and 3 can continue without prejudice to his contentions. 7. We notice that the order is an order of stay and, therefore, it would appear to be an interim order and the writ petitions are posted on 05.09.2016. As far as the first punishment is concerned, we would also think that though it does have effect of an order, by which the relief sought is granted, apparently, the learned Single Judge thought that the matter can be decided by directing it to be posted on 05.09.2016, which would be within the period of semester. As far as the first punishment is concerned, we would also think that though it does have effect of an order, by which the relief sought is granted, apparently, the learned Single Judge thought that the matter can be decided by directing it to be posted on 05.09.2016, which would be within the period of semester. We would think that, in the interest of justice, following modifications alone would be warranted in all these cases: We partly allow the Appeals and direct that the stay order will be limited to the first punishment. As far as the second and third punishments are concerned, the order of stay will stand vacated; but, this will be subject to the contentions of the respondent/writ petitioners. As far as stay relating to the first punishment is concerned, we only think that further modification would sub-serve the interest of justice. We record the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the counter affidavit(s) in all these cases will be filed on or before 17.08.2016. We record the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioners that rejoinder affidavit(s) will be filed within one day. Besides recording the same, we also direct that the case will stand listed in the daily cause list on 22.08.2016 before the learned Single Judge and we also request the learned Single Judge to take up the mater and decide the case at the earliest. Till then, we are not interfering with the stay in relation to the first punishment and, needless to say, that it will be subject to the result of the writ petitions. We leave open all the contentions of both the sides. 8. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.