JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common questions of facts as well as law are involved in the above captioned cases and similar relief has been claimed, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Petitioners herein are aggrieved with order dated 22.11.2023, passed by the Dean of Studies, Himachal Pradesh University, whereby they came to be expelled from the University on account of their having allegedly indulged in brutal/violent incident occurred near R&ME Section of Himachal Pradesh University on 20.11.2023. 3. For having bird’s eye view, facts, which are common in all the cases, are that on 20.11.2023, a violent incident occurred in front of main library of the respondent-University, wherein allegedly, one student namely Chandan, was brutally beaten by the petitioners herein. In the aforesaid alleged incident, aforesaid Chandan suffered grievous injuries, as a result thereof, he not only remained admitted in the hospital, but was also operated on account of fracture in his one leg. Police after having received information with regard to aforesaid incident, reached at the spot and registered a criminal case against the miscreants i.e. petitioners herein. Since scuffle was brutal and life threatening, Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University in its meeting held on 21.11.2023, approved to expel the petitioners and decision with regard to expulsion came to be communicated to the petitioners vide communication dated 22.12.2023, issued under the signature of the Dean of Studies. Incident had allegedly happened on 20.11.2023 and petitioners herein were expelled on 21.11.2023. Since afore order of expulsion vide communication dated 22.11.2023, was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and their request to reconsider the decision communicated vide aforesaid communication, was rejected, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023 with further direction to the respondent-University to permit them to continue their studies in the University. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-University filed a detailed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-University filed a detailed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. It is averred in the reply that scuffle was brutal and life threatening, which ultimately resulted in frightened atmosphere of the University and as such, Worthy Vice Chancellor immediately constituted a Disciplinary Committee, which having taken note of the situation and with a view to send clear cut message to the miscreants that indiscipline shall not be tolerated, decided to expel the persons involved in the incident. Respondents in their reply stated that one student namely Chandan was brutally given beatings, as a result thereof, he received life threatening grievous injuries. It has been admitted in the reply that at the time of passing of order dated 22.11.2023, no opportunity of hearing was given to the miscreants because of paucity of time. It is further averred in the reply that though initially vide communication dated 22.11.2023, twelve students in total were expelled, but, subsequently, after having enquired the matter in detail, expulsion of four students was revoked with a condition that in case such students are found to be involved in such kind of incident again, they shall be automatically rusticated/expelled without any further hearing. 5. Though vide order dated 22.11.2023, eight students including the petitioners stood expelled, but yet respondent-University with a view to provide opportunity of hearing, conducted fresh inquiry, wherein due opportunity of hearing was provided to the students. As per reply of the respondent-University, eight students filed their reply, but Disciplinary Committee being not satisfied with the reply, approved its earlier decision dated 22.11.2023, whereby petitioners alongwith other students, were ordered to be expelled. 6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in these petitions and further canvassed by Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that bare perusal of order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), clearly reveals that same was passed in violation of principle of natural justice because before passing such order, no opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioners and other students. Mr. Bhushan, while making this Court peruse clause 22.20 of University Statue, strenuously argued that no student could be expelled on account of his/her having indulged in the illegal activities like indiscipline and misbehavior etc, without affording opportunity of hearing. Mr. Bhushan, while making this Court peruse clause 22.20 of University Statue, strenuously argued that no student could be expelled on account of his/her having indulged in the illegal activities like indiscipline and misbehavior etc, without affording opportunity of hearing. He submitted that bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that a certificate signed by a Dean of Studies/Associate Dean/ Head of the College or Institution to the effect that students had been given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain their position before order was passed, ought to have been annexed with the report, if any, submitted by the Disciplinary Committee and only thereafter, Dean of Studies could proceed to pass order, thereby expelling the students including the petitioners. He further submitted that since aforesaid procedure was never adhered to and Disciplinary Committee after having noticed the unfortunate incident, straightaway proceeded to expel the petitioners, impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), deserves to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure R-5), whereby fresh order of expulsion came to be issued by the Dean of Studies, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once respondent-University by way of order dated 22.11.2203, had already expelled the students including the petitioners without affording opportunity of being heard, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondent-University to pass fresh order dated 20.12.2023, which in fact has been passed just to cover up the mistake committed by the University while passing order dated 22.11.2023. Mr. Bhushan, submitted that otherwise also, orders dated 22.11.2023 and 20.12.2023, are not sustainable in the eye of law being based upon post decisional hearing. He submitted that no doubt, before passing order dated 20.12.2023, opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners to put forth their stance, but admittedly, before that decision to expel the petitioners stood taken by the respondent-University as is evident from the order dated 22.11.2023. Lastly, Mr. Bhushan, argued that once it is not in dispute that one of the petitioner namely Shahbaz Khan, had also received serious injuries and he remained admitted in the hospital on account of injuries given to him by the opposite party i.e. Sh. Chandan and Sh. Nitin Deshta, why no action was taken against the aforesaid Chandan and Nitin Deshta. Bhushan, argued that once it is not in dispute that one of the petitioner namely Shahbaz Khan, had also received serious injuries and he remained admitted in the hospital on account of injuries given to him by the opposite party i.e. Sh. Chandan and Sh. Nitin Deshta, why no action was taken against the aforesaid Chandan and Nitin Deshta. He further argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that aforesaid persons were the students of the University, rather they being outsiders, firstly, unauthorizedly entered the University and thereafter, attempted to give beatings to the petitioners as well as other students. 7. To the contrary, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-University, while supporting the impugned action of the respondent-University, strenuously argued that there is overwhelming material available on record suggestive of the fact that on the date of the alleged incident, petitioners alongwith other students gave brutal beatings to the person namely Chandan, as a result of which, he suffered serious injuries. He submitted that Sh. Chandan is a student of the University and as such, it cannot be said that he was an outsider. While fairly admitting that the petitioner Shahbaz Khan, received injuries in the incident, Mr. Sharma, attempted to argue that he received injuries in the scuffle, however he was unable to point out any material available on record suggestive of the fact that injuries received by petitioner-Shahbaz Khan were not on account of beatings, if any, given by persons namely Chandan and Nitin Deshta. Though, Mr. Sharma, argued that Chandan was a student of Deen Dyal Upadhyay Chair, but he was unable to produce proof, if any, with regard to admission of the person namely Nitin Deshta, who also allegedly suffered injuries in the scuffle. Mr. Sharma, though admitted that at the time of passing of order dated 22.11.2023, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, but submitted that subsequently, respondent-University with a view to do complete justice, not only provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, but inquired the matter in detail and passed detailed order dated 20.12.2023, whereby earlier decision of expulsion taken by the Disciplinary Committee was approved. He further submitted that once it is not in dispute that before passing order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure R-5), due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners. He further submitted that once it is not in dispute that before passing order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure R-5), due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on 20.11.2023, scuffle took place inter-se two groups of the students and therein, one person namely Chandan received grievous injuries. Allegedly, injuries to the aforesaid persons were given by the petitioners as well as other persons named in order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure R-5). It emerges from the record that after the alleged incident, respondent-University, on the basis of limited information available with it, constituted a Disciplinary Committee, which in its meeting held on 21.11.2023, approved to expel as many as 12 students on the allegation that they indulged in illegal activities and gave beatings to person namely Chandan. Careful perusal of aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) itself suggests that before passing such order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and other persons, rather Disciplinary Committee having taken note of the preliminary information submitted through video clips as well as statements of some students, straightaway proceeded to expel the students. However, aforesaid order was reviewed subsequently in case of four students, who were permitted to study subject to a condition that in case they are found to be involved in the act of indiscipline in future, they shall be expelled without providing any opportunity of further hearing. 9. Having perused aforesaid order dated 22.11.12023, vis-à-vis University Statute 22.20, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that afore order could not have been passed by the respondent-University without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Statute 22.20, which reads as under : “22.20 Each case of rustication or expulsion shall be reported to the Registrar of the University immediately after the order is passed. A certificate signed by the Dean of Studies/Associate Dean/Head of the College or Institution to the effect that the student had been given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain his position before the order was passed shall accompany the report.” 10. A certificate signed by the Dean of Studies/Associate Dean/Head of the College or Institution to the effect that the student had been given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain his position before the order was passed shall accompany the report.” 10. Aforesaid provision contained in Statute reveals that each case of expulsion or rustication shall be reported to the Registrar of the University immediately after order is passed, but same should be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Dean of Studies, Associate Dean/Head of the college or institution to the effect that student was given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain his position before order was passed. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no such certificate signed by the authority concerned, as detailed herein above, was made available to the Registrar of the University, enabling him/her to pass appropriate orders, rather in the present case, Dean of Studies after having received recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee straightaway proceeded to pass order of expulsion that too without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as other persons. Though order dated 22.11.2023, deserves to be quashed and set-aside on this sole ground, but at this stage, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, attempted to argue that though, at the first instance, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the students, but subsequently, respondent-University while approving aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and passed fresh order dated 20.12.2023, perusal whereof reveals that order dated 20.12.2023 was passed by the authority concerned after perusing replies filed by the petitioners. No doubt, order dated 20.12.2023, placed on record reveals that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, but if the aforesaid order is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that same came to be passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 11. Once respondent-University vide order dated 22.11.2023, had expelled the petitioners on account of their having indulged in indiscipline, there appears to be merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent proceedings, which ultimately culminated with the passing of order dated 20.11.2023, was nothing, but a camouflage to cover up the earlier mistake committed by the respondent-University at the time of passing of the order dated 22.11.2023. Since by passing order dated 22.11.2023, respondent-University had already taken a decision to expel the petitioners and other similarly situate persons, subsequent opportunity, if any, afforded to the petitioners to explain their stand, may not be of much relevance/consequence, rather that can be easily termed as an attempt to justify the illegal action of the respondent-University. No doubt, material available on record suggests that petitioners indulged in the illegal activity and gave beatings to the persons namely Chandan and Nitin Deshta, but once it has not been denied by the respondent-University that one of the petitioner namely Shahbaz Khan also received serious injuries and remained admitted in the hospital, it is difficult to accept that person namely Chandan and Nitin Deshta, were given beatings by the petitioners for no fault of them, rather photographs placed on record by the University, itself suggest that there was a fight inter-se two groups, wherein members of both the groups received injuries. If it is so, why action, if any, was not taken against the persons, who allegedly gave beatings to the petitioner Shahbaz Khan. It has been specifically averred in the petition that neither Chandan nor Nitin Deshta was the student of the University, rather they being outsiders, firstly, unauthorizedly entered the University and thereafter, gave beatings. If the reply filed by the respondent-University is perused in its entirety, their answer to the aforesaid allegation is vague and evasive. Though, during the arguments, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, while making reference to the record, attempted to argue that Sh. Chandan was a student of Deen Dyal Upadhyay Chair, but he was unable to produce any record with regard to admission of another person namely Nitin Deshta. No doubt, any act of indiscipline cannot be tolerated, rather needs to be dealt with firm hand, but at the same time, respondent-University is not expected to discriminate and adopt pick and choose method. 12. In the instant case, though violence appears to have taken place inter-se two groups of students, but, conveniently, action has been taken against one group of student only, whereas no action ever came to be taken against the other group. Moreover, reply of respondent-University itself reveals that four students out of 12 were given pardon, but there is no explanation that why such procedure was not adopted in the case of the petitioners, who are admittedly the students of the same University. Moreover, reply of respondent-University itself reveals that four students out of 12 were given pardon, but there is no explanation that why such procedure was not adopted in the case of the petitioners, who are admittedly the students of the same University. Leaving everything aside, once there is nothing on record that order dated 22.11.2023, whereby petitioners came to be expelled, was passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, same cannot be allowed to sustain, especially, in view of the provisions contained in statute 22.20, which makes it mandatory for Disciplinary Committee to afford opportunity of hearing to a student, who is proposed to be expelled. No doubt by passing order dated 20.12.2023, respondent-University attempted to cover its mistake by affording opportunity of hearing, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that by that time, decision to expel the students including the petitioners stood already taken. Otherwise also, perusal of order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure R-5), nowhere reveals that fresh decision, if any, was taken to expel the petitioners, rather vide aforesaid order, earlier decision contained in order dated 22.11.2023, came to be re-affirmed, which is otherwise not in accordance with law. 13. Though at this stage, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure R-3, attempted to argue that though vide order dated 20.12.2023, earlier decision dated 22.11.2023 impugned in the instant proceedings, was affirmed, but taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners as well as report of Disciplinary Committee, No doubt, in order dated 20.12.2023, there is mention of replies given by the students as well as report of Disciplinary Committee, but fact remains that vide aforesaid order, ultimately, order dated 22.11.2023, which was passed in violation of statute 22.20, came to be re-affirmed. 14. Having examined the case from all the angles, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that decision contained in order dated 20.12.2023, which is a replica of earlier order dated 22.11.2023, is nothing, but based upon post-decisional hearing. 15. Since while passing order dated 22.11.2023, respondent-University had already made its mind to expel the students that too without affording an opportunity of hearing, fresh decision, if any, taken by the University dated 20.12.2023, is nothing but an attempt to give semblance that petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing before being awarded punishment of expulsion. 16. 15. Since while passing order dated 22.11.2023, respondent-University had already made its mind to expel the students that too without affording an opportunity of hearing, fresh decision, if any, taken by the University dated 20.12.2023, is nothing but an attempt to give semblance that petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing before being awarded punishment of expulsion. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds merit in the present petitions and same are allowed, as a result thereof, impugned orders dated 22.11.2023 and 20.12.2023 are quashed and set-aside, with a direction to the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University, to immediately permit the petitioners to continue their studies, however, before permitting them to join, an undertaking may be obtained from them that in case, they are found involved in any illegal activity in future, appropriate action in accordance with law would be taken against them. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.