JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. FACTS WPMS No.1612 of 2023 2. The challenge in this petition is made to impugned order dated 18.05.2023, passed by the respondent no.3, the Registrar, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the university”), by which the petitioner has been debarred for two semesters, i.e. II semester 2022-23 and I semester 2022-23. 3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows; the petitioner is a student of Ist year in the university. On 23.03.2023, he appeared for internal examinations/pre final of II semester examination of the academic year 2022-2023. The events, as per the petitioner, are as follows:- (i) A chit was wrongly left in the pocket of the petitioner, but within five minutes from the start of the examination, the Invigilator was informed and the chit was handed over to him. (ii) The chit, as well as, the answer sheet was taken by the Invigilator and a fresh answer sheet was provided to the petitioner. (iii) The Invigilator gave a dictation to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to admit the guilt and to apologise the conduct. (iv) Without any notice to the petitioner, the university disciplinary committee held its meeting on 03.05.2023. At 11:45 AM, the petitioner was required to reach at the venue at 12:00 Noon. (v) The petitioner was never given a chance to submit his case, (vi) The opinion of the disciplinary committee was never communicated to the petitioner. (vii) By the impugned order, the petitioner has been debarred from two semesters, as stated hereinbefore. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishment awarded to him is contrary to the academic regulations of the university, in as much as the Regulation 37 of the Academic Regulations of the University provides for punishment for using unfair means in the pre-final examination and, according to it, for such act, debar may be made for that semester alone. 5. The respondent/university has filed its objections. According to the respondent/university, the petitioner was studying under the external system of examination. Therefore, according to the academic regulations of the university, he has been debarred. WPMS No.1650 of 2023 6. 5. The respondent/university has filed its objections. According to the respondent/university, the petitioner was studying under the external system of examination. Therefore, according to the academic regulations of the university, he has been debarred. WPMS No.1650 of 2023 6. The challenge in this petition is made to impugned order dated 23.05.2023, passed by the respondent no.3, the Registrar, of the university, by which the petitioner has been debarred for two semesters, i.e. I semester 2022-23 and II semester 2022-23. 7. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:- (i) The petitioner is a student of B.TECH Agricultural Engineering in the university. On 06.05.2023, the petitioner was appearing for the pre final examinations, when a complaint was lodged by the Invigilator against the petitioner for use of unfair means. (ii) After completion of the examination, the Invigilator called the petitioner and forced him to write an apology admitting guilt. (iii) The petitioner being scared and under the undue influence of the Invigilator wrote the apology. (iv) The matter was referred to the disciplinary committee of the university. (v) The disciplinary committee of the university met on 11.05.2023, and found the petitioner guilty. (vi) During the course of the disciplinary committee of the university proceedings, the petitioner denied all the allegations; he denied use of unfair means. (vii) The order of the disciplinary committee of the university was never communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner was never given an opportunity to defend himself and refute the finding of the disciplinary committee of the university. (viii) The Vice-Chancellor of the university approved the recommendation of the disciplinary committee of the university without applying his mind, but it does not reveal as to how and what approval was granted. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishment awarded to him is contrary to the Academic Regulations of the University, in as much as the Regulation 37 provides the punishment for debarment from that semester alone. 9. The respondent/university filed its counter affidavit. According to the respondent/university, the petitioner was using unfair means and he was provided punishment as per Academic Regulations of the University. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the punishment is not as per Academic Regulations of the university. 9. The respondent/university filed its counter affidavit. According to the respondent/university, the petitioner was using unfair means and he was provided punishment as per Academic Regulations of the University. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the punishment is not as per Academic Regulations of the university. The petitioners were appearing in the pre final examination, for which the punishment could be only for one semester, as per Regulation 37(8) of the Academic Regulations of the University. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the principle of law, as laid down by this Court in the case of Mr. Udit Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University Pantnagar and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 383, to argue that under similar circumstances, the Court had set aside the punishment order and directed the Vice-Chancellor to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and, thereafter, pass an order. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/university would submit that the petitioners were appearing in the external system of examination, for which Regulation 37(8) of the Academic Regulations of the University is not applicable, instead, separate regulations are applicable, which have been noted after regulation 37(10) of the Academic Regulations. 14. It is also argued that it is a matter pertaining to university discipline, and in such matters, the Court should be slow to make any interference. 15. In support of his arguments, learned Senior counsel for the respondent/university (in the case of petitioner-Dipesh Phulera), placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and Others, Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59 . In the case of Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational institutions”. 16. Regulation 37 of the Academic Regulations of the University is as follows:- “Use of unfair Means 37. 16. Regulation 37 of the Academic Regulations of the University is as follows:- “Use of unfair Means 37. (1) The term ‘use of unfair means in the examinations’ or ‘attempt to use unfair means in the examination’ shall denote the items prescribed by the Academic Council, through its resolutions, from time to time. The following items are included in the category: (i) Possession of any books, notes, chits, programmable calculator or such other material and also any note(s) or signs written on any part of the body, furniture or any other material pertaining to the subject matter of the examination in the examination hall during the examination hours. (ii) Copying or allowing to copy or impersonation. (iii) Talking, whispering or signalling in any form in the examination hall or outside the examination hall during the examination hours. (iv) Any other activity which may give undue advantage in the examination to any student. (v) Refusal of a student to occupy the seat allotted to him/her in the seating plan. (vi) Any attempt to use any other means, which in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor may be construed to be unfair. (2) Every student shall be required to bring his/her own examination material, such as set squares, scales and the like, himself/herself, as he/she shall not be permitted to borrow any of these material from fellow student in the examination hall. (3) If any student is found to have used or attempted to use ‘Unfair means’ in any examination, his/her answer-book shall be seized by the Invigilator Incharge forthwith. The student may, however, be permitted to answer the remaining part of the question paper but on a separate answer-book. (4) The Invigilator Incharge shall submit a detailed report alongwith the answer books of the student and other related material, if any, to the examination superintendent (Dean of the College) concerned immediately after examination is over, with a copy to the Registrar and the Dean of the college concerned. (5) A written statement of the student, found to use or attempting to use unfair means in the examination hall will be obtained by the Invigilator Incharge and be forwarded with his/her report along with any other materials found with the student which should be signed by the student concerned in token of the same having been recovered from his/her possession. (6) In case the student refuses to give a statement, he/she shall not be forced to do so but the fact of his/her refusal be recorded by the Invigilator Incharge in his/her report. (7) The Examination Superintendent shall forward the report of the Invigilator Incharge to the Student Discipline Committee for detailed investigation, which shall send its report to the Vice-Chancellor with specific recommendations within a week from the date of report. (8) Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during a pre-final examination shall be debarred from the Semester. (9) Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during a semester final examination shall be debarred the current and the next semester. (10) Debarring a student would be treated as having been dropped from the University. For the students under external system of examination Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during an internal theory and/or practical examination in the first semester shall be debarred from the semester as well as for second semester of that academic session. A student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during an internal examination and/or practical examination in the second semester should be debarred from that semester as well as from first semester of that academic session. Student found using or attempting to use unfair-means or copying during a Semester Final Examination shall be debarred from the current and the next Semester. Student found using or attempting to use unfair means or copying during annual/board theory or practical examination shall be debarred from that academic session.” 17. It is being argued on behalf of the respondent/university that in the case of the petitioners, Regulation 37(8) of the Academic Regulations of the University shall not be applicable because the petitioners are governed by the external system of examination. 18. In fact, on 19.10.2023, Mr. Ravelkar, The Registrar of the University, assisted the Court. What transpired the Court on that date has been noted in the notesheet dated 19.10.2023, which is as follows:- “Today, Mr. Ravelkar, The Registrar of the University assisted the Court. He would submit that there are two types of examination in the University. One is external examination, which has a component of written examination also, but there are some examination, which are internal alone, which are applicable for post graduation courses and Ph.D programmes. Ravelkar, The Registrar of the University assisted the Court. He would submit that there are two types of examination in the University. One is external examination, which has a component of written examination also, but there are some examination, which are internal alone, which are applicable for post graduation courses and Ph.D programmes. The Court wanted to know from the Mr. Ravelkar, Registrar of the University as to which regulations provide for these types of examination? He would refer to page 46 of the Academic Regulations published in the year 2013 by the G.B. Pant, University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar indicating that this is scheme for external system of examination. The Court further request Dr. Ravelkar to tell as to which regulation provides for internal system of examination alone? He would submit that it is implied and there is no regulation for it. The Court wanted to know as to which regulation provides for internal system of examination alone? He could not indicate any such regulation. He would also submit that for B Tech. Students by virtue of Item No.13 of the Academic Council Resolution dated 13.08.2015, the external system of examination as applicable to the College of Agriculture, Home Science is to be followed, for which there will be internal examination of 50 percent and at the end of semester there will be external examination. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.” 19. Undoubtedly, a similar matter has been decided by this Court in the case of Mr. Udit Singh (supra). In the case of Udit Singh (supra) also, a student of the university appearing in the B.Tech. I year examination was found using unfair means. He was debarred. That order was challenged. This Court noted that the punishment is harsh and before such punishment is imposed, there should be clinching evidence. 20. This Court has also observed in the case of Udit Singh (supra), that admission of guilt made by the students, in such matters, may be done under the peculiar circumstances, in which the students find at the relevant time. The Court has also observed that the disciplinary committee of the university only makes recommendation, but the Vice-Chancellor has to take a decision by applying his mind. In Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 16, in the case of Udit Singh (supra), this Court observed as follows:- “8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. The Court has also observed that the disciplinary committee of the university only makes recommendation, but the Vice-Chancellor has to take a decision by applying his mind. In Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 16, in the case of Udit Singh (supra), this Court observed as follows:- “8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Joshi and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate, there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of this Court that once the use of unfair means is established, neither the Committee nor the Vice-Chancellor has any discretion to award any other punishment but which is prescribed under the Rules, which is to debar the students for two semesters. All the same, it is an extremely harsh punishment. Nevertheless, this particular Regulation, which is evidently harsh, is not under challenge before this Court.” “9. Under these circumstances, what has to be seen by this Court is that when a student is charged of using unfair means in the final examination, then the evidence against the student must be clinching and unrebuttable. In other words, from the evidence on record, there could be no other conclusion possible but the fact that under these circumstances the student has done nothing but having indulged in unfair means. The Discipline Committee, all the same, has not examined any evidence available before it in order to give its finding with regard to the conclusion that the petitioner has used unfair means in the examination. The conclusion drawn by the Discipline Committee is based on the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted to the use of unfair means.” “11. A submission has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a young student of 1st year B.Tech. and was presumably overwhelmed by the situation in which he was placed and, therefore, gave a statement in writing as he was directed. Since this statement was given in the examination hall itself, there can atleast be a presumption as to this contention of the petitioner.” “13. All the same, there is nothing to show on record that when the petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee he had actually made any admission in writing. Since this statement was given in the examination hall itself, there can atleast be a presumption as to this contention of the petitioner.” “13. All the same, there is nothing to show on record that when the petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee he had actually made any admission in writing. In writ petition though he has admitted to the act that a piece of paper was found with him but he has denied using any unfair means. Therefore, under these circumstances, the findings of the Committee is based entirely on the admission of the petitioner that the piece of paper was with him and for this reason the Committee has drawn a conclusion that the petitioner has used unfair means.” “15. All the same, the findings of the Discipline Committee are only in the nature of a recommendation. Whether a student has to be debarred for the Semesters or not is a decision which ultimately has to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Considering the fact and, as it has already been observed by this Court, that the punishment prescribed by law is an extremely harsh punishment, it is expected that the Vice-Chancellor under these circumstances would apply his mind to the nature of the case and thereafter pass an order. No order seems to have been passed by the Vice-Chancellor. From records, which have been presented before this Court, on recommendation of the Committee there are just bare signatures of the Vice-Chancellor-nothing more!” “16. In view thereof, the order dated 02.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed.” 21. In both the instant petitions, the petitioners have stated that they were made to write the admission of their guilt. They were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the proceedings of the disciplinary committee of the university. In fact, no order was, as such, passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the university. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Udit Singh (supra). This Court does not see any reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the case of Udit Singh (supra). 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that both these petitions may be decided in terms of the judgment dated 23.03.2017, passed in the case of Udit Singh (supra). 23. This Court does not see any reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the case of Udit Singh (supra). 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that both these petitions may be decided in terms of the judgment dated 23.03.2017, passed in the case of Udit Singh (supra). 23. Both these petitions are decided in terms of the judgment in the case of Mr. Udit Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University Pantnagar and Another, passed in WPMS No.499 of 2017. 24. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 and 23.05.2023 are set aside. 25. Now, the Vice-Chancellor of the university shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and proceed in the matter, as per the directions contained in Para 17 of the judgment in the case of Udit Singh (supra), which reads as follows:- 17. Having passed the abovesaid order, this Court not only would give an opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor but, on the other hand, would request the Vice-Chancellor to appreciate the entire case including the report of the University Discipline Committee and other evidence on record as well as the statement of the petitioner preferably after giving a personal hearing to the student and thereafter take a decision in the matter preferable within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. A personal hearing, however, would not mean that the petitioner would be represented by any other person, including a lawyer. For abundant precaution, the petitioner would be permitted to appear in the 2nd semester classes till the decision is finally taken by the Vice-Chancellor. It is made clear that this permission to the petitioner to appear in the second semester classes should not be taken as any comment on the merit of his case. The Vice-Chancellor must take a decision on the merit of the case, keeping all aspects into consideration, including the discipline of the institute.