JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(I). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 1-10-2016 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) so far it relates to the petitioner. (II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the effect and operation of the order dated 01.10.2016 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) so far it relates to the petitioner and directing the respondent authority to permit the petitioner to undergo his studies of the second semester.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a student of B.Tech. second year and is residing in the hostel meant for the students within the premises of the University. It is alleged that, on 01.09.2016, ten students of B.Tech. first year went to the stadium at about 05:00 p.m. to play cricket, but did not return to the hostel till 09:30 p.m. It is the case of the respondent that, on search, a clue was found that the students were brought to the Patel Bhawan Hostel from the stadium by the two students, namely, Mr. Ravi Kant Bhardwaj and Mr. Kushlash Sharma. The said missing students of B.Tech. first year were kept inside the hostel. One Mr. Mayank Kumar, I.D. No. 49208, reportedly offered dinner to four of them and when he was asked to reveal the whereabout of the missing students then though, he promised to bring them outside the hostel, but instead manage to mobilize the hostel inmates of Patel Bhawan hostel at the gate, on false ground, which resulted in agitating, shouting and abusing anti-ragging squad, Dean, Technology, wardens and security personnel. The members of the said squad, university officials and security personnel were not allowed to locate the missing students in the Patel Bhawan. Thus, as per the own case of the respondent university, two students were allegedly involved in bringing the students in the Patel Hostel and one student was allegedly involved in managing to mobilize the hostel inmates, resulting in agitation. It is alleged that the petitioner was not involved in any anti-ragging activity, nor he used abusive words to the faculty member or prevented the university officers to perform the anti-raging duty. It is alleged that the petitioner was not involved in any anti-ragging activity, nor he used abusive words to the faculty member or prevented the university officers to perform the anti-raging duty. As per the own case of the university authorities by 02.09.2016, all the students reported back to their hostel. Thereafter, on 06.09.2016, University Disciplinary Committee discussed the case and referred the matter to the college disciplinary board for investigation. On 07.09.2016, the board submitted its report and the matter was referred to the University Disciplinary Committee. On 07.09.2016, at 04:00 p.m., the University Disciplinary Committee investigated the case and, after investigation, found the petitioner guilty of using abusive words to faculty members, dean, security personnel and prevented the university officers to perform the anti-ragging duty. Thereafter, on 01.10.2016, the impugned order was passed imposing punishment on the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner was not at all involved in the ragging activity. He never prevented the University Officers in performing the anti-ragging duty. It is also contended that no abusive words was ever used by the petitioner. He further submits that, according to the statement of the first year student who was ragged, it is clear that petitioner was not involved in the ragging. Lastly, he submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is very harsh. The petitioner has already appeared in the examination and in case punishment awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the extent of the monetary fine and also for conduct probation for rest of his degree programme, the same will be sufficient. 4. It is also contended that, in future, petitioner will behave in a decent manner and he will not give any opportunity to the authorities to say anything about his conduct. 5. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the University submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is appropriate. He further submitted that, in the enquiry report, the involvement of the petitioner is found. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no evidence to show that petitioner was actually involved in the ragging. Only thing, as alleged, is that the petitioner prevented the University Officer to perform the anti-ragging duty and used the abusive language. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no evidence to show that petitioner was actually involved in the ragging. Only thing, as alleged, is that the petitioner prevented the University Officer to perform the anti-ragging duty and used the abusive language. Since the petitioner is of the age group of early 20’s and pursuing his studies in the reputed institution like G.B. Pant University, in my view, he should be given an opportunity to improve himself. University may consider punishment to award him fine and also conduct probation for rest of his degree programme. Rustication part can be ignored. 7. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition by requesting the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university to consider the matter of the petitioner for award of the punishment afresh. Monetary fine can be increased. The punishment of monetary fine as well as conduct probation for rest of his degree programme can be imposed on the petitioner. It will be open for the respondent-university to enhance the fine upto Rs. 5,000/-. Result of the petitioner will be declared after order of the Vice Chancellor is passed and fine, if imposed, is paid by the petitioner. 8. It is made clear that in case the petitioner again misconducts during his studies, it will be open for the respondent-university to take strict action against the petitioner. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. All the pending applications stand disposed of.