Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 862 (UTT)

Abdul Kadir v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-21

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Since all these writ petitions raise common questions of law, therefore, I am disposing of the same by common judgment. 2. Petitioners, in all these writ petitions, call in question the impugned order dated 22.08.2016, whereby the petitioners have been expelled from the University. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to pursue their studies in their respective courses. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2733 of 2016 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2848 of 2016, further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 14.07.2016, by which the petitioners have been suspended and have been directed not to enter into the college campus. 3. Heard Mr. Garuav Singh and Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and also Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate appearing for the Uttarakhand Ayurved University. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they are the students of the B.A.,M.S. Course in Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, Rishikul Campus, Haridwar. The petitioners started their studies and attended classes and examination conducted year wise. According to the petitioners, it was found that college and university authorities were not working in proper manner and deliberately harassing the students and, therefore, the petitioners along with other students raised their voice against the authorities and, being annoyed with the petitioners and other students, the respondent passed an order dated 14.07.2016 on the direction of Vice Chancellor of University, whereby the petitioners were suspended and were directed not to enter into the college campus. It is alleged that, on 13.08.2016, the respondent-Vice Chancellor of the University lodged an F.I.R. with the allegations that in presence of teachers of University, documents of students studying in 2015 B.A.,M.S. batch were verified. During verification, photo, signature and documents of some of the students were not matched and were found to be incorrect. On the basis of report lodged, case crime no. 595 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 34, 120-B & 109 IPC was registered before Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar against the students of Rishikul campus of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. In the F.I.R., the petitioners were not named and no role was assigned to them in the same. On the basis of report lodged, case crime no. 595 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 34, 120-B & 109 IPC was registered before Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar against the students of Rishikul campus of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. In the F.I.R., the petitioners were not named and no role was assigned to them in the same. It is alleged that on 16.08.2016, the respondent moved an application before the police mentioning the name of the petitioners stating therein that on 16.08.2016 the verification of documents of petitioners and other students of 2014 batch were conducted, wherein the signature, photo and other documents were not found proper. On the basis of the application moved by the respondent, police added the name of the petitioners, in the above case crime. On 03.09.2016, the petitioners received an order dated 22.08.2016, by which the petitioners were expelled from the university on the ground that in the meeting of Proctorial Board, decision was taken to lodge FIR against the petitioners and other students. It was also recommended to expel the petitioners from the University, as it was found in the alleged enquiry that the documents of the petitioners and other students were suspicious. Hence, these writ petitions. 5. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2733 of 2016 is accepted on record. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Apart from this, another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the punishment awarded to them is so harsh that the entire life of the petitioners is ruined. 7. In paragraph no. 3(f) of the counter affidavit, the respondents have come up with the case that a notice was pasted on the notice board of the college, hospital, hostel and also in the classes of the colleges by the committee, informing the students to appear before the committee to verify their documents. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the students were directed to appear before the committee for verification; but, they did not appear, therefore, the order impugned was passed. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were on preparation leave, therefore, the petitioners could not know about the same. 8. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the students were directed to appear before the committee for verification; but, they did not appear, therefore, the order impugned was passed. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were on preparation leave, therefore, the petitioners could not know about the same. 8. In my view, before passing of impugned order, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. The matter requires proper enquiry and for that purpose petitioners should be informed about the wrong act done by them. They are required to give reply for which some time should be given to them. Only thereafter, after considering their reply, orders should be passed. 9. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Ayurved University also submitted that the respondent-University is still ready to consider the case of the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners may approach the concerned Authorities of the University and will put up their case and, thereafter, the decision will be taken afresh. 10. The stand taken by the University is highly appreciated by this Court. Since the issue involves career of various students, I think that the proposal given by the University should be accepted. 11. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: The order impugned in all these writ petitions is hereby quashed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Authorities of the University on 01.12.2016. It will be open for the University to give proper notice/charge-sheet giving details of wrong committed by the petitioners. It will also be open for the petitioners to give their reply in writing. The University Authorities shall consider the oral submission as well as the reply of the petitioners given in writing and, thereafter, will pass fresh reasoned orders in respect of each petitioner separately. 12. Stay applications also stand disposed of. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.