ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed against the Order passed by the Director, National Institute of Technology, Warangal (NITW), vide No.NITW/Dir/Vig./2019/4460 dated 28/29.01.2019, canceling the Ph.D admission of the petitioner-Shri A. Chandra Mohan, and the consequential proceedings dated 30.07.2019, 18.11.2019 and the final Senate proceedings dated 03.01.2020 confirming the expulsion of the petitioner from Ph.D course. 2. Heard Ms. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Vani Reddy, G.P. for Education Department, and Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institute. Learned counsel for both sides sought to advance arguments at length both on facts and law. This Court asked the learned counsels to submit a brief note of their arguments along with judgments relied and the same are placed on file. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner joined the respondent-Institute as a Junior Research Fellow for DST-SERB Project on 12.12.2017 and has been subsequently enrolled for the Ph.D programme in the Academic Year 2017-18 vide Roll No.717168 in the Department of Chemistry under the supervision and guidance of respondent No.5. On 25.04.2018, the petitioner submitted the Progress Report with regard to his Research Work for the period December, 2017 to April, 2018 to the Dean, Academic Affairs. The Report was recommended and forwarded by the Dean, Academic Affairs, and the Chairman and Members of the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee assessed the research work. The petitioner was given grade ‘A’ in two subjects, and grade ‘B’ in other two subjects. Having not satisfied with the grading awarded, the petitioner on 04.06.2018 at 1:30 PM, allegedly used unparliamentary language against respondent No.5-research guide in the laboratory, and had an emotional outburst on his Research Guide in his chambers at 5:00 PM on the same day in front of another faculty Dr.B.Srinivas. At the request of respondent No.5, the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee convened a Meeting on 11.06.2018 and questioned the petitioner about his conduct and grading and asked the petitioner to submit his resignation and leave the institution. At the request of respondent No.5, the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee convened a Meeting on 11.06.2018 and questioned the petitioner about his conduct and grading and asked the petitioner to submit his resignation and leave the institution. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, the respondent No.5 addressed a written complaint to the Director, NITW, stating that after the DSC Meeting of 11.06.2018, the petitioner gave an open challenge to the research career and job of respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 has become unstable and unable to concentrate on his work and therefore requested to remove the petitioner from his project and also to cancel the petitioner’s Ph.D registration. Pursuant to the complaint dated 19.06.2018 made by respondent No.5, the Director, NITW, constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Prof. K.V. Jayakumar, to discuss the issue and take further course of action. The Committee met on 20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 and deliberated on the issue and decided to take a lenient view by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, however cautioned the petitioner by imposing certain conditions to be complied by the petitioner with regard to his research work and conduct. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Prof. Srilakshmi, and the Committee recommended to cancel the Ph.D registration of the petitioner. Thereafter, a Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 came to be issued by observing that the petitioner has not showed any improvement in his research work and conduct, and the petitioner replied to the same on 07.01.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 28/29.01.2019 cancelling the Ph.D registration of the petitioner, hence the writ petition. 4. Ms. Thereafter, a Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 came to be issued by observing that the petitioner has not showed any improvement in his research work and conduct, and the petitioner replied to the same on 07.01.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 28/29.01.2019 cancelling the Ph.D registration of the petitioner, hence the writ petition. 4. Ms. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments in the writ affidavit and also the documents filed along with the writ affidavit and by making a reference to the counter affidavit of the respondents, submits that the petitioner is a research scholar pursuing Ph.D course in the Department of Chemistry under the guidance of respondent No.5; that the Ph.D course work started on 12.12.2017; that the petitioner research work for the period December 2017 to April 2018 in four subjects was assessed and grading was given; that Grade ‘A’ was awarded in two subjects and Grade ‘B’ was awarded in other two subjects; that on 04.06.2018 at 5:00 PM, the petitioner shouted and had an emotional outburst at his supervisor-respondent No.5 in the chambers; that respondent No.5 made a complaint against the petitioner; that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the complaint made by the respondent No.5 in spite of many oral requests; that on 03.03.2020 the petitioner had also furnished a representation requesting to provide him a copy of the complaint dated 19.06.2018, and also a second complaint dated NIL made by respondent No.5 immediate prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 02.01.2019, but the same was denied to the petitioner; that the respondent No.5 was a Member of the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee Meetings which were held on 11.06.2018 and 05.12.2018 and a copy of the minutes were never supplied to the petitioner; that the first DSC Committee meeting took place on 11.06.2018 and reached a conclusion without justifying reasons, whereas the complaint against the petitioner has been lodged on 19.06.2018; that the second DSC Meting revealed that one lady staff has complained against the petitioner but the details are not revealed to the petitioner and the contents of the complaint have not been stated in the minutes and also not shown to the petitioner; that since its inception a preconceived opinion was formed and same was carried out in bad faith against the petitioner; that the DSC Committee framed their mind that the petitioner should leave the campus by submitting resignation; that in the complaint dated 19.06.2018 it was stated that the petitioner used ‘unparliamentary language’ but did not state about the exact words used by the petitioner, as the term ‘unparliamentary language’ has a wider connotation; that due to usage of such term as unparliamentary language, the entire career and life of the petitioner is at stake; that the petitioner never exhibited belligerent attitude against co-research scholars; that the punishment meted out to the petitioner by canceling his Ph.D registration is highly disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; that therefore the impugned order dated 28/29.01.2020 is unsustainable and hence liable to be set aside. 5. In support of her contentions, Ms. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments: (i) Alempaao v. The Secretary, Govt. of India, MANU/GH/0397/2007 (ii) Brahma Baksh Singh ‘Gopal’ v. University of Lucknow, MANU/UP/0113/2001 (iii) S. Kumuda v. Bangalore University, MANU/KA/0454/1996 (iv) Tahir Abdul Wahid v. State of J&K, MANU/JK/0390/2014 (v) Sri Janardhana v. Bangalore University, W.P.No.5543/2013 (EDN-RES) (High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore) (vi) Deepak Kumar Gupta v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8538/2015 and CM Nos.18385/2015 & 33995/2017 (Delhi High Court) (vii) U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741 (viii) The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. V. The State of West Bengal, 1962 AIR 1044 (ix) Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 AIR 1958 (x) State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Tripathi, Civil Appeal No.8918 of 1994 (Supreme Court) (xi) Km. Ruchira Chauhan v. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, AIR 1996 All 12 (Allahabad High Court) (xii) Surat Kumar Patnaik v. Kanpur University, AIR 1996 All 13 (Allahabad High Court) 6. Per contra, Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institute, while referring to the averments in the counter affidavit and the documents filed along with the counter affidavit, would submit that respondent No.5 is the research supervisor of the petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted a complaint on 19.06.2018 before respondent No.4-Director, NITW, stating that on 04.06.2018 the petitioner created an unhealthy environment in the lab and corridor of the Department of Chemistry in the presence of many research scholars and used unparliamentary language against him over the grades awarded to him; that on the same day (04.06.2018), at 5:00 PM, the petitioner rushed to the chambers of the respondent No.5 and argued with him in the presence of Dr. B. Srinivas on the grades given to him; that the petitioner’s behavior is not good and he quarrels with fellow Ph.D students; that a Doctoral Scrutiny Meeting was held on 11.06.2018 on the request of respondent No.5; that the DSC Members were unhappy with the behavior of the petitioner and suggested him to leave the institute by submitting resignation; that after DSC meeting, the petitioner gave open challenge to the research career and job of respondent No.5 and therefore respondent No.5 requested to cancel the candidature of the petitioner from his project and also to cancel the Ph.D registration of the petitioner; that a Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2018 against his misconduct, using unparliamentary language against his research supervisor and threatening with dire consequences; that the petitioner submitted explanation dated 10.07.2018 apologizing for the incident and stating that he became emotional as he did not get his desired grading and that he would be sincere and honest in his work and would not exhibit such reaction in front of his supervisor in future; the DSC Committee met on 20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 and afforded an opportunity to the petitioner subject to giving an undertaking that he would be honest, sincere in his work and would not indulge in any misconduct and that the petitioner would be on probation from 04.09.2018 for a period of three months and that his work and conduct would be closely scrutinized; that in spite of taking lenient view the petitioner did not improve on his research work and conduct during the period of time granted. 7. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that as per the report of the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee and Doctoral Assessment Committee (PG & Research) of the Department, a second Show Cause Notice dated 02.01.2019 was issued to the petitioner directing to Show Cause as to why his Ph.D registration should not be cancelled; that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 07.01.2019 making further allegations against other scholars and respondent No.5 who is his supervisor; that the petitioner stated that he wanted to bring outside influence on respondent No.5; that the petitioner was not able to show requisite attention to his research work and continued to misbehave with his Supervisor and other research scholars; that the petitioner was not able to show discernible progress in research work and became burden to the department and thereby violated Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 1 of the Student Conduct and Disciplinary Code attached to the Rules and Regulations of Ph.D Program; that respondent No.4 being the competent authority decided to cancel the Ph.D registration of the petitioner and passed the order dated 29.01.2019. 8. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.4 on 06.05.2019 requesting for change of research guide; that the said representation was considered by the Committee of the Department of Chemistry in its meeting on 14.05.2019 and observed that the Ph.D registration of the petitioner was cancelled and therefore change of guide has no relevance, and further observed that no faculty was willing to guide him; that the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.4 on 06.06.2019 apologizing for all that has happened and requested to permit him to pursue the Ph.D; that respondent No.4 considered the request of the petitioner and the entire material available before him, passed an order dated 30.07.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal on 05.09.2019 to respondent No.3-Senate against the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by respondent No.4-Director, NITW; that the appeal and the grounds were considered by the Senate, and the Senate rejected the appeal observing that there are no valid grounds; that the rejection of appeal was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.11.2019; that the petitioner has given one more representation on 29.11.2019 to the Senate to consider his re-admission in Ph.D programme. 10. 10. Learned counsel would further submit that the Senate has confirmed the cancellation order passed by respondent No.4 thereby rejected the request of the petitioner for re-admission in Ph.D programme; that the petitioners contention that a copy of the complaint dated 19.06.2018 has not been provided to him, but the petitioner is aware of the allegations leveled against him in the complaint filed by respondent No.5 and the same were incorporated in the Show Cause notices issued to him; that the petitioner having not made any request for a copy of the complaint and having admitted the allegations in his replies to the Show Cause notices twice and again in his representation to the respondent No.4-Director, NITW, and thereafter in his appeal and representations to the Senate about his misconduct and using unparliamentary language and threatening respondent No.5 is now making a belated attempt of non-supplying a copy of the complaint. 11. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has not shown interest in completing his research work and delaying the project on some pretext or the other; that the petitioner never worked diligently; that despite the opportunity given to the petitioner to mend his behavior, the petitioner did not show improvement in his work and conduct. 12. In support of his arguments, Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-institute relied on the following judgments. (i) Satish Nainala vs. English and Foreign Languages University, 2016 (4) ALD 37 (ii) Varanasya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya v. Dr.Raikishore Tripathi, AIR 1977 SC 615 (iii) Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University v. Craig Macleod, (2012) 11 SCC 275 (iv) Mahatma Gandhi University v. Sherin. S, Civil Appeal No.5894 of 2010 (v) Chhatrapathi Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur v. Sweta Singh, 2017 LawSuit(All) 3161 (Allahabad High Court) 13. Learned counsel further contended that the various judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner deal with the cases where Principles of Natural Justice were not followed and action was taken without any notice. But with regard to the petitioner in the present writ petition, show cause notices were issued twice and only minor punishment was imposed in the first instance and since the petitioner persisted with his misconduct and did not improve his research work, his Ph.D registration was cancelled following the Procedure prescribed and there is no merit in writ petition and hence prays for the dismissal of this writ petition. 14. 14. It is not necessary for this Court to individually deal with each of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that in each of the case, the relief was either moulded or certain observations were made in the facts of such case. In those circumstances, there is no ratio decidendi which can be made applicable to the present set of facts. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not support the case of the petitioner and the opinion expressed by the Courts in these cases are in individual set of facts. It may not be out of place to observe that when challenge is made with respect to a particular action of the authorities, under Article 14 of the Constitution, the facts of such case would become relevant rather than the similar or nearly similar facts of another case. 15. Similarly, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, Satish Nainala (13 supra) is a case where a Ph.D Scholar has been rusticated for 4 semesters from the University for indulging in vandalism of destroying glass door in library. The Hon’ble court has held that unless there is a necessity, the Courts shall restrain from judicial review and shun from interfering in matters of the university internal disciplinary affairs and further opined that maintenance of discipline is important for conducive academic environment in university and larger interest should be given more weight than that of an individual interest of a student. Hence this writ petition has been dismissed. This case relates to specific instance of vandalism and hence does not apply to the facts of the present case. 16. In Varanasya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (14 supra), the issue of permanent appointment powers of the university were in question. The Supreme Court held that in a matter touching either discipline or the administration of the internal affairs of the university, Courts should be most reluctant to interfere. This is a case involving permanent appointment powers of university, and is not connected with the facts of the present case. 17. In Guru Ghasidas University (15 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a student has been rusticated by the University on disciplinary grounds of manhandling and threatening a faculty member and High Court has exercised it’s judicial review. 17. In Guru Ghasidas University (15 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a student has been rusticated by the University on disciplinary grounds of manhandling and threatening a faculty member and High Court has exercised it’s judicial review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that maintaining conducive environment and larger interest of the academic community are important than an individual interest. This is a case of specific instance of manhandling and assault on a faculty member and the present case is different on facts. 18. In Mahatma Gandhi University (16 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeals filed by the University saying that High court is discouraged to pass interim orders in matters of educational institutions and High Court has erred in allowing students to write exams and further said that menace of ragging in educational institution adversely impacts standards of education and has to be cured with iron hand. In this case the respondents were charged under ragging Act and under section 376 of IPC which are considerably serious offence and, it is to the university authorities to decide whether or not any disciplinary action against students was called for. The facts of this case relate to ragging, and the present case is different on facts. 19. Chhatrapathi Sahu ji Maharaj University (17 supra) is a case where the petitioner, a B.Tech student, was debarred from attending 6th Semester examination for going out of the campus without permission and indulging in drinking and indecent act. The present case can be distinguished on facts. 20. As a matter of fact, a close scrutiny of the above judgments would disclose that each case is required to be considered based on the facts of that particular case before the Court, and no generalization can as such be made. Reference was made to the judgments by both the learned counsels at the beginning. Having gone through the judgments relied on by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case would be more relevant than the general observations in a particular judgment relied on by the learned counsels. 21. Reference was made to the judgments by both the learned counsels at the beginning. Having gone through the judgments relied on by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case would be more relevant than the general observations in a particular judgment relied on by the learned counsels. 21. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsels, and considering the above factual matrix and statutory position, the question that falls for consideration is whether the Order dated 28/29.01.2019 passed by the Director of respondent No.4-Institute cancelling the Ph.D registration of the petitioner is sustainable or liable to be set aside? 22. This Court called for the Original File of the respondent institute. The file contains an Index page showing a total of 32 documents, marked at page numbers 1 to 49. It may be noticed that the certain documents mentioned below, are found to be photocopies and not the originals: (i) Minutes vide Lr.No.NITW/Chemistry/2018 dt.05.12.2018 (page 17) (ii) Progress Report of the candidate for the period of May 2018 to November 2018 dated 18.12.2018 (page 18) (iii) Letter dated 21.12.2018 with Subject “Work culture and behavior and of Mr.A.Chandramohan (Roll No.717168)” (page 19) (iv) Unsigned Explanation cum request letter dated 07.01.2019 of the petitioner (page 21) (v) Letter dated 25.04.2019 of the petitioner requesting for change of supervisor and asking to allot Dr.D. Kashinath, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry (page 23) (vi) Letter dated 30.04.2019 of Dr. Dhurke Kashinath, Associate Professor, addressed to the Director, NITW (page 24) (vii) Letter dated 06.06.2019 of the Petitioner addressed to the Director, NITW, requesting for reconsideration of his admission to Ph.D course (page 29) 23. On behalf of respondents 2 to 5, the Registrar, NITW filed a counter affidavit. Though respondent No.5 was made a party respondent with specific allegations, in spite of receipt of notice, he had not chosen to file counter affidavit denying the allegations against him. 24. At the outset, the genesis for the impugned action is the incident of 04.06.2018 on which day the petitioner having been dissatisfied with his grading awarded to him is alleged to have abused his Research Guide (respondent No.5) in the laboratory at 1:30 PM and also in the chambers at 5:00 PM in the presence of another faculty. 24. At the outset, the genesis for the impugned action is the incident of 04.06.2018 on which day the petitioner having been dissatisfied with his grading awarded to him is alleged to have abused his Research Guide (respondent No.5) in the laboratory at 1:30 PM and also in the chambers at 5:00 PM in the presence of another faculty. At the request of respondent No.5, a meeting of the DSC Committee was convened on 11.06.2018, and the petitioner was questioned about his behavior with his Research Guide and also alleged quarrelsome attitude with his labmates. The DSC Committee recorded that the answers given by the petitioner were irrelevant and not convincing and therefore recommended the petitioner to leave the institute by submitting resignation. 25. On 19.06.2018, the respondent No.5 made a written complaint to the Director, NITW alleging that after the DSC Meeting on 11.06.2018, the petitioner gave open challenge to the research career and job and threatened him due to which the respondent No.5 is unable to concentrate on his job. 26. On 04.07.2018, the Registrar issued a Show Cause notice to the petitioner asking him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner furnished his written explanation dated 10.07.2018 to the Registrar stating that due to the grading awarded to him in his work assessment, he became emotional and reacted in such a way and that he would sincerely and honestly follow the instructions of his supervisor. The explanation was forwarded by the Registrar to the DSC Committee, whereupon the DSC Committee made a remark on the document stating that “The DSC Committee recommended him to leave the Instt by submitting Resignation letter. It is herewith recommended that a necessary action be taken. (signed by Registrar on 17.7.2018).” 27. The recommendation was forwarded to the Dean (Academics) who commented that “Committee may be constituted and decision may be taken based on the report of the Committee” (signed 18.7.2018). 28. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted vide letter No.NITW/Dir/SA/2018/1893 dated 03.08.2018 under the Chairmanship of Prof.K.V.Jayakumar, Dean (IR &AA), with Dean (R&C), Dean (SA), Registrar, HOD of Department of Chemistry and Liaison Officer of SC/ST as its members. 29. Prof. K.V. Jayakumar Committee met on 20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, and noted the following issues: 1. 28. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted vide letter No.NITW/Dir/SA/2018/1893 dated 03.08.2018 under the Chairmanship of Prof.K.V.Jayakumar, Dean (IR &AA), with Dean (R&C), Dean (SA), Registrar, HOD of Department of Chemistry and Liaison Officer of SC/ST as its members. 29. Prof. K.V. Jayakumar Committee met on 20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, and noted the following issues: 1. Shri A. Chandra Mohan, was initially appointed as JRF for the DST-SERB Project on 12.12.2017 and has subsequently enrolled for the Ph.D programme as full time scholar in the academic year 2017-18 second semester under project fellowship. 2. He has completed the course work and obtained “A” grade in two courses and “B” grade in other two courses. 3. Having not satisfied with the grades awarded, Shri Chandra Mohan has created unhealthy environment in the lab and the corridors of the Department when other research scholars were present. He argued with his supervisor and used unparliamentary language against him. 4. In the DAC meeting held on 11.6.2018, he did not give proper explanation to his misconduct and gave irrelevant answers. 5. In the reply to the show cause notice and in his oral submissions, Shri Chandra Mohan regretted his behavior and apologized to the Supervisor, Head of Department and other Members of the Committee. He assured that he will be sincere and will ensure that such incident will not recur. 30. Prof. K.V. Jayakumar Committee, having considered the above issues, decided the following course of action in the matter: “While this is a fit case for terminating the fellowship of Shri Chandra Mohan, keeping in view his assurance and his social background, the Committee recommends taking a lenient view on the present misconduct and to give one final opportunity to him to pursue his research, subject to the following conditions: 1. The period from 4.6.2018 to 3.9.2018 may be treated as suspension and he will not be entitled to fellowship, during this period. 2. Shri Chandra Mohan will be on probation for a period of three months from 4.9.2018, during which his work and conduct will be under close scrutiny. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice. 3. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice. 3. Shri Chandra Mohan should submit an undertaking that he will be sincere and honest to his research work and shall maintain cordial relations with all concerned. Further he understands that if he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff members, his fellowship will be terminated without any further notice.” 31. The recommendations of Prof. K.V. Jayakumar Committee were approved by the Director, NITW on 28.08.2018. 32. In compliance of the decision taken by Prof.K.V. Jayakumar Committee, the petitioner submitted an Undertaking vide letter dated 04.09.2018 stating as under: “I will not involve in quarrelling with either my supervisor (or) co-scholars in the Department. I believe in doing my work sincerely and honestly and do my best. If any quarrelling (or) untoward instances had done by me in future you can expel me from the department and from the institute without any notice. I request you to consider my case as humanitarian grounds and permit me to continue my research in the department of chemistry.” 33. The Registrar issued a Letter No.NITW/RS/SC/2018 dated 05.09.2018 to th petitioner, which reads as under: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY No.NITW/RS/SC/2018/2259 September 5, 2018 Subject: Representation of Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar On consideration of the representation and undertaking submitted by Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar and based on the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose, the Competent Authority has decided to take a lenient view on the misconduct of Shri Chandra Mohan and to give on final opportunity to him to pursue his research, subject to the following conditions: 1. The period from 4.6.2018 to 3.9.2018 may be treated as suspension and he will not be entitled to fellowship, during this period. 2. Shri Chandra Mohan will be on probation for a period of three months from 4.9.2018, during which his work and conduct will be under close scrutiny. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice. 3. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice. 3. Shri Chandra Mohan should submit an undertaking that he will be sincere and honest to his research work and shall maintain cordial relations with all concerned. Further he understands that if he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff members, his fellowship will be terminated without any further notice. Shri Chandra Mohan has submitted the undertaking as at S.No.3 above. Accordingly, Shri Chandra Mohan is permitted to resume his research in the Department of Chemistry under the supervision of Dr.K.Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, with effect from 5.9.2018, subject to the above conditions. (S. Goverdhan Rao) Registrar Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar, Department of Chemistry, NIT, Warangal Copy to: 1. Dean (SA) 2.Dean (FA), NIT, Warangal 3. Head, Department of Chemistry 3. Dr. Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Chemistry 4. Associate Dean (Accounts) 34. This letter dated 05.09.2018 makes it clear that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the complaint of respondent No.5 came to a logical conclusion ending up with imposing certain caution and sanctions/conditions against the petitioner. 35. Thereafter, a DSC Committee Meeting under was convened vide letter No.NITW/Chemistry/2018 dated 05.12.2018. In the fact situation as narrated, the conducting of meeting of the DSC on 05.12.2018, and the Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 which culminated in the impugned order dated 28/29.01.2019 are required to be considered for arriving at a decision in this writ petition. 36. The opening sentence of the DSC Committee Minutes reads that “as per the suggestion from the Registrar NITW (dated : 30.11.2018) the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee met on 05.12.2018 at 11.00 am in the chambers of the Head of the Department to discuss on the complaint given by Dr. K. Hari Prasad, Assistant Professor against his research student Mr. A. Chandramohan (Roll No.717168) regarding his misconduct in the lab and threatening the supervisor.” 37. Yet another sentence in Para 2 of the same Minutes is “In addition to this, recently the Head of the Department has received an oral complaint from one of the lady office staff about his quarreling with her.” 38. A. Chandramohan (Roll No.717168) regarding his misconduct in the lab and threatening the supervisor.” 37. Yet another sentence in Para 2 of the same Minutes is “In addition to this, recently the Head of the Department has received an oral complaint from one of the lady office staff about his quarreling with her.” 38. In the Original File placed before this Court, and the documents placed by the respondents counsel along with the summary of arguments before this Court, there is no other complaint other than the one made by respondent No.5 on 19.06.2018 which is relevant for the purpose of this Writ Petition. The file also does not disclose the suggestion alleged to have been made by the Registrar dated 30.11.2018 and what was the suggestion and in what circumstances the Registrar came to make a suggestion. It is also not discernible from the Minutes as to what was the reason for convening the DSC Meeting on 05.12.2018 except on the suggestion said to have made by the Registrar. 39. On 02.01.2019, a Show Cause notice was issued by the Registrar calling for explanation which reads as under: Office of the Registrar National Institute of Technology WARANGAL - 506 004 No.R/RS/SC/2019/3997 dated 02.01.2019 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Show Cause Notice for cancellation of Ph.D Registration of Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar in Chemistry Department. Shri Chandra Mohan may please refer to this office note No.NITW/RS/SC/2018/2259, dated 05.09.2018 regarding the final opportunity given to him to show improvement in his work and conduct. It has been reported with the approval of DSC and DAC (PG&R) that Shri Chandra Mohan, has not shown any improvement in his work and conduct and still continue to misbehave with his Supervisor and Research Scholars and others in the Department. In the light of the above the Competent Authority of the Institute has decided to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri Chandra Mohan, as to why his Ph.D Registration should not be cancelled. Reply to this Show Cause notice should be submitted to the undersigned within seven (07) days i.e., by 09.01.2019 failing which it would be presumed that he has no representation to make and further action will be taken. REGISTRAR Shri A. Chandra Mohan Research Scholar Department of Chemistry NIT, Warangal. Copy to: (1) Dean (SW) (2) Dean (FW) (3) Head, Dept. of Chemistry (4) Dr. Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, Dept. REGISTRAR Shri A. Chandra Mohan Research Scholar Department of Chemistry NIT, Warangal. Copy to: (1) Dean (SW) (2) Dean (FW) (3) Head, Dept. of Chemistry (4) Dr. Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Chemistry (5) Associate Dean (Accounts). 40. There is no reference in the Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 as to what was the trigger for the Registrar to issue the Show Cause notice. Further, the Show Cause notice while making a reference to Proceedings of 05.09.2018 of the Registrar with regard to final opportunity given to the petitioner to improve on his work and conduct, a reference was made to a report with the approval of DSC and DAC (PG & R) by making an allegation that the petitioner has not shown improvement in his work and conduct and continued to misbehave with his and scholars and others in the Department. 41. In the Original File provided to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent had placed only a Photostat copy of the Minutes of the Committee dated 05.12.2018 and not the original copy as submitted by the Committee, thereby depriving this Court with regard to the manner the same was dealt with by the Registrar, assuming the same was submitted to the Registrar which appears to be the basis for issuance of Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 to the petitioner. If the original would have been made available, it would have been possible for this Court to at least see through the notings, if any, and therefore this Court is not able to discern the reasons for selectively submitting certain original and certain Photostat copies when the Case file was directed to be produced by this Court. 42. It may be noted that the complaint dated 19.06.2018 relating to the episode of 04.06.2018 was dealt with and decided by the Prof. K.V. Jayakumar Committee vide Letter No.NITW/RS/SC/2018/2259 dated 05.09.2018, taking a lenient view on the present misconduct of the petitioner. It is not discernible from either the counter affidavit or from the File produced before the Court, the trigger for the Registrar, NITW to suggest on 30.11.2018 for constituting a DSC Meeting of the Department of Chemistry to “discuss on the complaint given by Dr.K. Hari Prasad, Assistant Professor against his research student Mr. A. Chandramohan (Roll No.717168) regarding his misconduct in the lab and threatening the supervisor”. A. Chandramohan (Roll No.717168) regarding his misconduct in the lab and threatening the supervisor”. It may not be out of place to mention that the complaint of respondent No.5 was dealt with and matters have reached a quietus by letter dated 05.09.2018. 43. The Show Cause notice was responded to by the petitioner on 07.01.2019 wherein he had expressed his misgivings with respondent No.5 and requested to consider change of supervisor if possible. 44. In the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee Progress Report, dated 18.12.2018, for the period May 2018 to November 2018, the work progress of the petitioner was recorded as “unsatisfactory”, and that the petitioner was “not doing the work assigned by the supervisor related to the research project and unable to produce fruitful results”. This Doctoral Scrutiny Committee was headed by Dr. K.V. Gobi, Professor & Head, Department of Chemistry. 45. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.PHIL./PH.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016, (for short, ‘the UGC Regulations, 2016’) which laid down the procedure to be followed to monitor/review the research progress of a candidate. Subparagraph 8.3 under Paragraph 8 deals with Research Advisory Committee and its functions as stipulated under the 8. Research Advisory Committee and its functions: 8.1 --- 8.1.1 -- 8.1.2 -- 8.1.3 -- 8.2 --- 8.3 In case the progress of the research scholar is unsatisfactory, the Research Advisory Committee shall record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures. If the research scholar fails to implement these corrective measures, the Research Advisory Committee may recommend to the Institution/College with specific reasons for cancellation of the registration of the research scholar. 46. If the research scholar fails to implement these corrective measures, the Research Advisory Committee may recommend to the Institution/College with specific reasons for cancellation of the registration of the research scholar. 46. Likewise, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions dealing with academic matters of the respondent institute, published under the Statutes of The National Institute of Technology Act, 2009, which read as under: Section 8 - Powers of the Senate (First Statute) (i) --- (ii) --- (iii) --- (iv) Appoint Advisory Committees or Expert Committees or both for the Departments or Centres of the institute to make recommendations on academic matters connected with the working of the Departments or Centres; (v) appoint Committees from amongst the members of the Senate, other teachers of the Institute and experts from outside to advise on such specific and important academic matters as may be referred to any such Committee by the Senate; (vi) consider the recommendations of the Advisory Committees attached to various Departments or Centres and that of Expert and other Committees and take such action (including the making of recommendations to the Board) as warranted by each case; (vii) --- (viii) --- (ix) promote research and academic development or activity within the Institute and seek reports on such research or academic development or activity from the persons engaged therein; Schedule ‘C’- “Deanships” (Statute 19(5)) 3. Dean (Students Welfare) (c) He/She will advise the Director in matters related to students; discipline and welfare. (g) He/She will conduct the enquiries of students indulged in indiscipline. (h) He/She will correspond with Parents/Guardians of Students about their progress with individual problems/Welfare. 47. It may be noted that for the three month period commencing from 04.09.2018, the petitioner was under probation and close scrutiny with respect to his work and conduct. If that be so, there is nothing on record to show the details of research work that is expected of the petitioner, and the parameters taken into consideration to arrive at the conclusion of non-performance. If that be so, there is nothing on record to show the details of research work that is expected of the petitioner, and the parameters taken into consideration to arrive at the conclusion of non-performance. Further, there is nothing on record to show whether any steps were taken by respondent No.5/institute as contemplated under Section 8 of UGC Regulations, 2016, by way of suggesting/communicating to the petitioner the remedial/corrective measures for improvement in the research work, and whether the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in implementing those suggestions, and whether there was an objective assessment of petitioner’s work, and whether the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of UGC Regulations, 2016, has been exhausted prior to making recommendation for cancellation of Ph.D registration of the petitioner. 48. It may not be out of place also to mention that the altercation with the respondent No.5 was on 04.06.2018, and the episode has seemingly come to an end on 05.09.2018. In the given situation, one can visualize the state of mind of the petitioner as well as the individuals manning the Department during the said period, which incidentally fall within the May, 2018 to November, 2018, during which period the petitioner is alleged to have not performed well to the satisfaction. Though a letter dated 21.12.2018 alleged to have signed by 15 research scholars against the petitioner is found in the file, no reference need to be made with regard to the same as at no point of time the said letter was put to the petitioner nor any enquiry was made with regard to the same. 49. A perusal of the Minutes of Meeting of the DSC Committee dated 05.12.2018 convened at the suggestion of Registrar, NITW, would show that a lady staff member is said to have made an oral complaint to the Head of the Department against by the petitioner complaining that the petitioner quarreled with her. However, no details about the complaint, or the alleged lady staff are placed on record, and there is no averment that the petitioner was put on notice with respect to any such oral complaint. In the absence of any material particulars with respect to the alleged complaint, no finding can be arrived at to the detriment of an individual. So it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the alleged oral complaint of anonymous lady staff. 50. In the absence of any material particulars with respect to the alleged complaint, no finding can be arrived at to the detriment of an individual. So it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the alleged oral complaint of anonymous lady staff. 50. It may be noted that the research supervisor, respondent No.5- Dr.K. Hari Prasad, who is the complainant, has been a Member of the DSC Committee dated 11.06.2018, and also an Invitee in the Prof.K.V. Jayakumar Committee dated 20.08.2018/21.08.2018, and also a signatory to the proceedings of DSC Meeting held on 05.12.2018 under the Chairmanship of Prof. P.V. Srilakshmi, Professor and Head of Department of Chemistry. The Committees were dealing with an issue relating to the complaint made by respondent No.5 against the petitioner, and the decision /result is likely to have a bearing on the petitioner. 51. The DSC Meeting dated 11.06.2018 was chaired by Prof. K.V.Gobi, Head of the Department, Dr.K.Hari Prasad, Assistant Professor, Prof. K. Laxma Reddy, Prof. V. Rajeshwar Rao, all from Department of Chemistry, and Dr. Sirish H. Sonawane, Department of Chemical Engineering. The Minutes of the Meeting dated 11.06.2018 itself states that the petitioner was asked to leave the institute by submitting his resignation letter. The complaint dated 19.06.2018 of the 5th respondent was submitted to the Director through proper channel and was received by the Director’s office on 27.06.2018. On the said letter, the action to be taken against the petitioner to cancel his candidature from his project and the Ph.D admission was recommended by Prof. K.V.Gobi, Prof. K. Laxma Reddy and the Director. The same is clear from the endorsements made by the respective individuals on the letter dated 19.06.2018 available in the file. 52. Similar endorsements are also found on the copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 10.07.2018. Thereafter, invoking the provisions of Students’ Conduct and Disciplinary Code, the proceedings dated 05.09.2018 were issued, treating the period 04.06.2018 to 03.09.2018 as suspension and putting the petitioner on probation for three months from 04.09.2018 whereunder his conduct and work were to be closely scrutinized and if anything adverse to be found his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice. 53. 53. In the impugned order dated 28/29.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.4-Director, NITW, it was recorded that the petitioner had failed to improve his work and conduct, and that the petitioner had made further allegation against his research supervisor and scholars. It was further alleged that the petitioner wanted to bring outside influence to pressure his supervisor, and instead of discussing his requirement of chemicals for his research work with his supervisor, the petitioner has requested the Registrar to provide the chemicals for enabling him to concentrate on his research work. 54. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the allegation petitioner wanted to bring outside influence would not stand to scrutiny as no details of any such outside influence having been brought by the petitioner is placed on record. 55. It is the assertion of the petitioner that necessary chemicals for conducting experiments were not made available and that it took nearly three months to get the chemicals and the same are evident from the date of order form and date of invoice. Except the petitioner’s mentioning in his letter dated 07.01.2019 in the explanation-cum-request that the Coordinator of SC/ST Cell Dr.A.Banerjee Babu and Liaison Officer, Dr.M.Hira Lal had spoken to the petitioner’s parents in the presence of the guide and his parents also assured about the petitioner’s sincerity at work in completion of his Ph.D apart from petitioner offering apologies to the guide, there is no material placed on record that the petitioner has brought outside influence. It may be noted that there is no material placed on record, and put to the petitioner, after 05.09.2018 or any fresh cause of action to give a finding that the conduct of the petitioner was objectionable. The involvement of Coordinator of SC/ST Cell representative is only on account of the fact of petitioner being an SC candidate and the same is mandated due to the procedure evolved by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24295/2004 accepting Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendations. 56. The involvement of Coordinator of SC/ST Cell representative is only on account of the fact of petitioner being an SC candidate and the same is mandated due to the procedure evolved by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24295/2004 accepting Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendations. 56. The challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner is with specific allegations of malafides against respondent No.5 who is alleged to have influenced the decision boring grudge against him for his questioning of being awarded with B grade and his repeated complaints of not being provided with necessary chemicals to carry out his research in spite of his pleading with respondent No.5 who is supposed to be his mentor and supervisor, about his being a Scheduled Caste student with some merit and having obtained necessary qualification in spite of his poor economic and social background. His personal repeated pleadings to have sympathy and indulgence and the coordination done by SC/ST cell on his behalf by talking to his parents was being misinterpreted and being wrongly projected as bringing external influence rather than viewing the same in right perspective. It is also the specific assertion of the petitioner that there was no meaningful assessment with regard to the work that was done by the petitioner in an objective manner. 57. While the impugned order sought to make out a case that the petitioner had failed to come up to the expected standards in his research project, the fact that the Professors involved in the Department of Chemistry had made up their mind even as far back as on 11.06.2018 and the same opinion had continued throughout the proceedings, is evident from the record. 58. In a case of this nature where there is an element of mistrust on the individuals who had expressed their unequivocal opinion that the petitioner is to be checked out from the institution, it would have been desirable to have entrusted the assessment of the work already done and the work to be done in connection with the research to an independent panel of experts in the subject, even assuming for argument sake, that there was some laxity on the part of the petitioner/research scholar. The factual analysis of the correspondence and other material placed before this Court upto the date of resulting in the impugned order dated 28/29.01.2019 leave no manner of doubt that there was a concerted effort made by the respondents concerned manning the institution with the determination that the Research Scholar needs to be shown his place. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the termination of petitioner’s Ph.D registration is accentuated with malafides and bias. In that view of the matter, and in light of the impugned order, it casts a shadow of doubt on the impartiality of the proceedings, and the same cannot be said to be absolutely unbiased/uninfluenced. 59. It would be relevant at this juncture that in view of the academic year of the petitioner’s research scholarship being 2017-18, to refer to the provision relating to tenure of Research Scholarship as contained in the National Institute of Technology, Warangal, Ph.D. Program Rules and Regulations. “The tenure of a research Scholarship shall be three years counted from the date of joining. The initial award shall however, be released for one year and then renewed from year to year up to the third year, subject to satisfactory progress. On the recommendation of the DSC, the tenure may be extended for a further period of two more years, granting the extension for not more than six months at a time subject to the satisfactory performance of the scholar, at seminar lecture delivered embodying the progress of the work. Grant of a six-monthly instalment of the tenure is subject to actual requirement of the scholar's work to be certified by the DSC, after assessing the progress of the work presented through Seminar lectures.” 60. Further, the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.PHIL./PH.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016, lays down certain guidelines with respect to the Ph.D Programme, which are as under: 4. --- 4.2 Ph.D. programme shall be for a minimum duration of three years, including course work and a maximum of six years. 4.3 Extension beyond the above limits will be governed by the relevant clauses as stipulated in the Statute/Ordinance of the individual Institution concerned. 4.4 The women candidates and Persons with Disability (more than 40% disability) may be allowed a relaxation of one year for M.Phil and two years for Ph.D. in the maximum duration. 4.3 Extension beyond the above limits will be governed by the relevant clauses as stipulated in the Statute/Ordinance of the individual Institution concerned. 4.4 The women candidates and Persons with Disability (more than 40% disability) may be allowed a relaxation of one year for M.Phil and two years for Ph.D. in the maximum duration. In addition, the women candidates may be provided Maternity Leave/Child Care Leave once in the entire duration of M.Phil/Ph.D. for up to 240 days. 5. --- 5.1 --- 5.2 --- 5.3 The admission shall be based on the criteria notified by the Institution, keeping in view the guidelines/norms in this regard issued by the UGC and other statutory bodies concerned, and taking into account the reservation policy of the Central/State Government from time to time. 5.4 HEIs as mentioned in Clause 1.2 shall admit candidates by a two stage process through: 5.4.1 An Entrance Test shall be qualifying with qualifying marks as 50%. The syllabus of the Entrance Test shall consist of 50% of research methodology and 50% shall be subject specific. The Entrance Test shall be conducted at the Centre(s) notified in advance (changes of Centres, if any, also to be notified well in advance) at the level of the individual HEI as mentioned in clause 1.2; and 5.4.2 An interview/viva-voce to be organized by the HEI as mentioned in clause 1.2 when the candidates are required to discuss their research interest/area through a presentation before a duly constituted Department Research Committee. 5.5 The interview/viva voce shall also consider the following aspects, viz. whether: 5.5.1 the candidate possesses the competence for the proposed research; 5.5.2 the research work can be suitably undertaken at the Institution/College; 5.5.3 the proposed area of research can contribute to new/additional knowledge. 5.6 --- 9.7 The Ph.D. thesis submitted by a research scholar shall be evaluated by his/her Research Supervisor and at least two external examiners, who are not in employment of the Institution/College, of whom one examiner may be from outside the country. The viva-voce examination, based among other things, on the critiques given in the evaluation report, shall be conducted by the Research Supervisor and at least one of the two external examiners, and shall be open to be attended by Members of the Research Advisory Committee, all faculty members of the Department, other research scholars and other interested experts/researchers. The viva-voce examination, based among other things, on the critiques given in the evaluation report, shall be conducted by the Research Supervisor and at least one of the two external examiners, and shall be open to be attended by Members of the Research Advisory Committee, all faculty members of the Department, other research scholars and other interested experts/researchers. 9.8 The public viva-voce of the research scholar to defend the dissertation/thesis shall be conducted only if the evaluation report(s) of the external examiner(s) on the dissertation/thesis is/are satisfactory and include a specific recommendation for conducting the viva-voce examination. If the evaluation report of the external examiner in case of M.Phil. dissertation, or one of the evaluation reports of the external examiner in case of Ph.D. thesis, is unsatisfactory and does not recommend viva voce, the Institution shall send the dissertation/ thesis to another external examiner out of the approved panel of examiners and the viva-voce examination shall be held only if the report of the latest examiner is satisfactory. If the report of the latest examiner is also unsatisfactory, the dissertation/ thesis shall be rejected and the research scholar shall be declared ineligible for the award of the degree. 9.9 The Institutions shall develop appropriate methods so as to complete the entire process of evaluation of M.Phil. dissertation/ Ph.D. thesis within a period of six months from the date of submission of the dissertation/thesis. 61. In view of the above discussion, the Cancellation Order dated 28/29.01.2019 terminating the Ph.D registration of the petitioner is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The consequential proceedings dated 30.07.2019, 18.11.2019 and the final Senate proceedings dated 03.01.2020 are also set aside. 62. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. The tenure for completion of Ph.D programme of the petitioner shall be in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2016, and respondent No.2-institution guidelines. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.