JUDGMENT : SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. The petitioner, a student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the UPES, for brevity) has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the arbitrary and illegal suspension order passed on 24.06.2022 for a period of 15 days, i.e. 03.08.2022 to 17.08.2022 along with all other punishments and entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has taken admission in the aforesaid Institute in the course of Bachelor of Design (Transpirations and Mobility) Course for the academic Session 2019-2023 having Roll No. SAP-500075760 of the aforesaid University. On 06.05.2022, at about 9:30 A.M. when the petitioner was moving along with one of his friends, the respondent no. 4 driving Ford Endeavour Car registered with number UK 07 DP 9687 allegedly overtook the vehicle of the petitioner in a very dangerous manner, for which, the petitioner got imbalanced, but somehow saved themselves by stopping his vehicle in front of respondent no. 4’s vehicle. It is alleged that the petitioner and his friend abused the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4 also allegedly threatened the petitioner and misbehaved with him and his friend. 3. On the report of the respondent no. 4, Dean of Student Welfare convened a disciplinary proceeding, which was headed by himself. From annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the Committee held its meeting where the petitioner was not present though it is stated by the respondent herein that the petitioner did not appear before the Committee in spite of sufficient notice. The Disciplinary Committee gave its finding about the petitioner’s committing intimidation and was found guilty under Section 5 (c) xv and xvii of UPES Regulations Governing Maintenance of Discipline among Students, 2009. The findings and the recommendations of the Committee is being quoted herein below for proper appreciation: “(D) FINDINGS Based on the analysis of evidence, as contained in Section C of this report, the Disciplinary Committee has reached the following findings unanimously. It has been established during the enquiry that Mr. Dhruv Chandna (SAP ID 500075760, student of B.Des-VI sem) and Mr. It has been established during the enquiry that Mr. Dhruv Chandna (SAP ID 500075760, student of B.Des-VI sem) and Mr. Adarsh Rajawat (SAP ID 500066975, student of B.Des-VIII sem) committed acts of major indiscipline by indulging in threatening, which constitutes misconduct under the Provision contained in Clause 5 (c) xv and xvii of UPES Regulations Governing Maintenance of Discipline Among Students, 2009, which reads as follows: “Indulging in acts of violence, threat, intimidation or assault or harassment or extortion or theft towards fellow students, teaching faculty and employees of the University within or outside the Campus.” Also, the attitude of Mr. Dhruv Chandna (SAP ID 500075760, student of B.Des-VI sem) and Mr. Adarsh Rajawat (SAP ID 500066975, student of B.Des-VIII sem) during inquiry and after that was not appreciable. (E) RECOMMEDATIONS: Consequent to the above findings, Disciplinary Committee unanimously recommends the following to Mr. Dhruv Chandna (SAP ID 500075760, student of B.Des-VI sem) and Mr. Adarsh Rajawat (SAP ID 500066975, student of B.Des-VIII sem): (a) They should be given warning letter with an advise not to indulge in any indiscipline matter in future. (b) They should be counseled by University Counselor for their arrogant and deviant behavior. (c) Mr. Dhruv Chandna (SAP ID 500075760, student of B.Des-VI sem) should be suspended from all curricular and co-curricular activities in the next semester for three months. (d) Mr. Adarsh Rajawat (SAP ID 500066975, student of B.Des-VIII sem) should be suspended from the final Juries of B.Des-VIII sem.” 4. On the basis of such recommendations, the University took a decision to suspend the petitioner for three months. He preferred an appeal before the Vice Chancellor, who too upheld the findings but reduced the sentence of suspension of the petitioner for three months to 15 days suspension. Such order has been challenged in the writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s case does not come within the ambit and scope of the Rule cited under the finding of the Disciplinary Committee and that he is a student, and if the order of punishment is allowed to remain then it will have an adverse impact on his future prospects of higher studies and gainful employment. Learned counsel further submits that the report has not been dated and none of the Members have fixed any date thereto. Hence, the document is very doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that the report has not been dated and none of the Members have fixed any date thereto. Hence, the document is very doubtful. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already apologized as is evident from the document appearing on page 27, i.e. annexure 6 and, therefore, he may not be given such harsh suspension. Moreover, the complaint of the petitioner against the employee of respondent no. 4 was not considered by the Disciplinary Committee. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the University has right to take a disciplinary action against the erring student. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents reducing the period of suspension should not be interfered with. Moreover, learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that this matter is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the University being a private University does not come within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue any writ of certiorari. 7. Coming to the last submission, at the outset, this court takes note of the exact words appearing in the Article 226 of the Constitution, which reads, as follows: 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs: (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 [***] very High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose]. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without: (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order. (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32. The expression “any person or authority” in this case is a juridical person. It includes any institution, who can sue on be sued. Moreover, the University is engaged in a solemn duty of imparting higher education relating to technology for development of Petroleum and Energy Studies. It is further borne out that the University of Petroleum Analysis and Higher Studies is a creature of a University of Technical Studies Act, 2002, passed by the Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand as Act No. 15 of 2003 on 8th of July, 2002. The Act has been passed to establish in the name of University of Petroleum Studies with facilities for education, training and research in the areas of technology for development of Petroleum and analysis Studies and related to education society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980. 8. The Act has been passed to establish in the name of University of Petroleum Studies with facilities for education, training and research in the areas of technology for development of Petroleum and analysis Studies and related to education society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980. 8. Thus, it is apparent that the University itself enacted by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand with an avowed objective of developing facilities for education, training and research in the areas of Petroleum Analysis and Higher Studies. Thus, the University is discharging a public duty and it cannot be said that duties and responsibilities of the University is a private matter. It has duties not only with respect to students who take admission in the University but also with respect to the society, economy and nation by doing research relating to the Petroleum and other forum of energies. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the University is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The writ is maintainable against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of punishment as per their Disciplinary Rules, quoted above. 9. Coming to the merit of the case, this Court finds that the report of the Disciplinary Committee, where, admittedly, the petitioner was not present, does not have any date on it. None of the signatories has put a date on it. It is settled that in such a serious matter, the Disciplinary Committee must give the date, on which, the order was passed. This fact of not providing a date of signing itself, creates substantial doubts regarding the authenticity of such a proceedings. 10. The petitioner has also apologised by submitting a written apology, i.e. Annexure-6 dated 25.05.2022 to the writ application. The complaint of the petitioner was also never considered by the Disciplinary Committee. When the petitioner has also filed a complaint against the respondent no. 4, it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to come to a definite conclusion regarding the genuineness of such a complaint. Without giving any finding thereon the impugned findings have been passed and recommendation has been made for a very serious punishment of three months of suspension, which was reduced by the appellate authority, i.e. Vice Chancellor to 15 days. Without giving any finding thereon the impugned findings have been passed and recommendation has been made for a very serious punishment of three months of suspension, which was reduced by the appellate authority, i.e. Vice Chancellor to 15 days. At this stage, this court is of the opinion that since the occurrence took place outside the campus, because of a petty quarrel on the issue of overtaking the car on the public road, and that nobody was assaulted, no physical harm was caused to the respondent no. 4 punishment imposed by the University is very harsh and is disproportionate. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as it is the right of the University to impose discipline on a student and as the Appellate Authority has reduced the punishment to 15 days which, if fact, is only 8 days of suspension, the order should not be set aside. However, we are not concerned about the physical aspect of the suspension order. We are concerned about the temporal aspect of the punishment. 12. In that view of the matter, the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated by the Principles of Natural Justice and the undated report of the Committee cannot be held to be an authentic one. This Court is also of the opinion that the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner will have an adverse effect on the future aspect of the petitioner, therefore, it should be set aside. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient and in the interest of justice to uphold the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, the writ appellation is allowed. The orders dated 24.06.2022 and 23.05.2022 are hereby quashed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.