Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 905 (UTT)

Abdul Rehman v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-30

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner, in this writ petition, calls in question the impugned order dated 22.08.2016, whereby the petitioner has been expelled from the University. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies in B.A.,M.S. Ist year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the student of the B.A.,M.S. Course in Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, Rishikul Campus, Haridwar. The petitioner started his studies and attended classes. According to the petitioner, it was found that college and university authorities were not working in proper manner and deliberately harassing the students and, therefore, the petitioner 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 petitioner is not named and no role was assigned to him in the same. According to the petitioner, during the investigation, name of the petitioner was added. 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 petitioner received an order dated 22.08.2016, by which the petitioner was expelled from the university on the ground that in the meeting of Proctorial Board, decision was taken to lodge FIR against the students. It was also recommended to expel the petitioner from the University, as it was found in the alleged enquiry that the documents of the petitioner and other students were suspicious. Hence, this writ petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Apart from this, another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is so harsh that the entire life of the petitioner is ruined. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Apart from this, another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is so harsh that the entire life of the petitioner is ruined. 5. 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 petitioner did not match with the original. Consequently, the order impugned was passed. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on preparation leave, therefore, the petitioner could not know about the same. 6. In my view, before passing of impugned order, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The matter requires proper enquiry and for that purpose, petitioner should be informed about the wrong act done by him. He is required to give reply for which some time should be given to him. Only thereafter, after considering his reply, orders should be passed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Ayurved University also submitted that the respondent-University is still ready to consider the case of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner may approach the concerned Authorities of the University and put up his case and, thereafter, the decision will be taken afresh. 8. The stand taken by the University is highly appreciated by this Court. Since the issue involves career of the student, I think that the proposal given by the University should be accepted. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: The order impugned is hereby quashed. Petitioner is 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 petitioner. It will also be open for the petitioner to give his reply in writing. Petitioner is 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 petitioner. It will also be open for the petitioner to give his reply in writing. The University Authorities shall consider the oral submission as well as the reply of the petitioner given in writing and, thereafter, will pass fresh reasoned orders in respect of the petitioner. 10. Stay applications also stand disposed of. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.