Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 895 (UTT)

Amir Hussain v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-28

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Since both these writ petitions raise common questions of law, therefore, I am disposing of the same by common judgment. 2. Petitioners, in 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. 3. Heard Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal and Mr. Tapan Singh, 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. It is alleged that, on 13.08.2016, the respondent no. 3 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. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3170 of 2016 it is stated that the petitioner was present in the college on that day, but he had to leave college before alleged verification, but even then the name of the petitioner was sent to the police without proper verification as the same was done hurry and cursory manner. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3170 of 2016 it is stated that the petitioner was present in the college on that day, but he had to leave college before alleged verification, but even then the name of the petitioner was sent to the police without proper verification as the same was done hurry and cursory manner. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3171 of 2016, it is alleged that on 17.08.2016, the respondent moved an application before the police mentioning the name of the petitioner stating therein that on 17.08.2016 the verification of documents of petitioner and other students of 2013 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 petitioner, in the above case crime. It is also stated that on 17.08.2016, verification of documents of B.A.,M.S. 2013 batch was done in absence of the petitioner. 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. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits 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 and pursuant to the above notice they have appeared before the committee for verification. After verification, the photo and signature of the petitioners did not match with the original. Consequently, 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. 7. After verification, the photo and signature of the petitioners did not match with the original. Consequently, 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 put up their case and, thereafter, the decision will be taken afresh. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Stay applications also stand disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in each connected petition.