* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: January 7th, 2010
Decided on: February 19th , 2010
+ LPA 580/2009
PRANSHU S RAGHUVANSH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Bham Pant,
Advocates.
versus
INDRAPRASTHA INSTITUTE OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghu Nayyar with Mr. V.K.Tandon,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. The Appellant, a student of B.Tech Course (Information Technology)
in Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology was studying in the
second year of the said course. On 23rd April, 2009 the Appellant along with
LPA 580/2009 Page 1 of 37
two of his friends stayed back in the hostel for preparation of the ongoing
exams. However, on the said late evening/night Ishaan, Shashank and the
Appellant went to the pool room and then to the computer room. It is the case
of the Respondents that Ishaan took the question paper of Theory of
Computation (TOC) which was to be conducted on 24th April, 2009 by
unauthorisedly accessing the electronic/other records in the room of Dr.
Astrid, Academic Coordinator of the Exams. Ishaan gave the question paper
to Shashank who copied the same and the Appellant stood there watching
their activities. Ishaan also tampered with the electronic data of the academic
coordinator. On discovery of the incident when the erring students were
called on 25th April, 2009 they gave their written statement in their own
handwriting. The statement dated 25th April, 2009 of the Appellant is
reproduced:-
“We entered the IIIT premises around 10.30 pm. After that I
was in the pool room. Ishaan & Shashank entered the room
opening the window using the AC window. Shashank found
the paper he brought it to the chairs copied it and Ishaan still
was in the room searching Astrid Ma’am’s laptop, then
Shashank copied the paper and Ishaan closed the room and
we came back. And I was near the window when Ishaan
started printing.As told by Ishaan,
When Ishaan was using the laptop he tried to print some
scores, but the printer was out of paper and he gave the
cancel command and shut down the laptop.LPA 580/2009 Page 2 of 37
I never entered the room, and was not involved in tampering
the marks.Sd/-
(Pranshu S. Raghuvansh)”
2. Subsequently, the Appellant was called to the Emergency Senate on
28th April, 2009 where he tendered a prepared written statement which is
reproduced as under :-
“The day before TOC paper i.e. on 23rd April, 2009 I came to
the hostel for preparation. By evening I had covered most of
the topics. Ishaan came to me and asked whether I was
prepared for the paper, I told him that I had prepared for 60-
70%. Then Ishaan, suggested that we should go to IIIT to play
pool or counter strike. When we (Ishaan, Shashank & me)
entered IIIT (around 10.30 pm), the guard stopped Ishaan for
entry. I went forward to the pool room to set the balls, from
the pool room window I noticed Ishaan opening and entering
the window of Astrid madam’s room, Shashank was standing
at the window, I was surprised and puzzled at this action.
Ishaan gave some paper to Shashank and Shashank took the
paper to the chairs in front of the classes. Seeing this I left the
pool room & when I reached there I found that it was the next
day’s TOC paper. I was simply shocked to see this.
After some time I said I heard something on the roof and
excused myself from the place. I went to the roof and started
thinking about what was happening. Then I came back and
told them that it was nothing. When I returned I saw that
Ishaan was still in the room doing something in Astrid
madam’s Laptop. I asked Ishaan through the door what he
was doing but he couldn’t hear me, so I went to the window to
ask him what he was doing, then I saw that he was printing out
something (some kind of table), then he hastily shut down the
computer and came out of the room with printout. When
Shashank copied the paper he returned it to Ishaan who put itLPA 580/2009 Page 3 of 37
back into the room. Then I insisted them to leave the place
and after that we returned back to hostel.On the way back to the hostel I realized that they have come to
IIITD with some ulterior motive and I was also made a part of
something serious unknowingly, only way out of this was to
report the matter to the authorities, which I never had the
guts to do. I decided not to see the questions or their answers
and do my best on my own. If the questions were known to
me I would have attempted all the questions of the paper. It
may be confirmed from my answer sheet.As far as changing of marks I didn’t even know about it and it
came to my knowledge during the investigation on 25 th April.
As I never entered the room, I was neither a party to paper
incidence nor marks changing. It may be confirmed from the
records. I have been a good student and I don’t need to do
such type of things. In first semester theory examination I had
secured 159 marks (out of 290) and was placed at 5 th position.
This can be checked from records, for ready reference I am
attaching the list mailed to me.I would like to summarise my submission as follows:
1. I was not aware of the intentions and I went there only to
play pool.2. I never entered in the room and was only confined to the
public area, entry to which is allowed.3. I was not involved in leakage and copying of question
paper and its answer.4. I have not altered my scores in any record i.e. have not
tampered with the records.5. I had no prior knowledge of question or their answers.
In light of my above submission I humbly request you to
kindly consider my case judiciously on the basis of facts stated
by me. I have not done any dishonesty either academic or
otherwise. Therefore, charges framed against me, if any, mayLPA 580/2009 Page 4 of 37
be withdrawn and I must be allowed to sit in written and
practical examination.”3. In the emergency meeting of the Senate the case of Appellant and two
others was considered on 28th April, 2009 which recommended the expulsion
of the three students that is Appellant Pranshu S. Raghuvansh, Ishaan and
Shashank, but before expulsion it was decided to give the students an option
to withdraw. Ishaan and Shashank withdrew. However, the Appellant filed a
writ petition being WP(C) No.8680/2009 before this Court wherein this Court
issued notice to the Respondents. As no interim orders were passed in favour
of the Appellant, the said order dated 1st May, 2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court was challenged by the Appellant herein by filing
LPA No.207/2009 which was disposed of on 12th May, 2009 with the
following directions :
“During the course of hearing, both the parties fairly agreed to
the disposal of the petition with the direction that the Senate of
the respondent Institute would give show-cause notice to the
appellant and thereafter, after hearing the appellant and
considering his representation pass a reasoned order in the
matter. Accordingly, we direct the respondent Institute to give
a show-cause notice to the appellant setting out the charges
against him within one week from today. It would be open to
the appellant to file his reply within one week thereafter. The
matter would thereafter be considered by the Senate and after
giving a hearing to the appellant, the Senate will pass a
reasoned speaking order within a period of two weeks
thereafter. In view of the same, the expulsion order passed
against the appellant is set aside. However, it is clarified thatLPA 580/2009 Page 5 of 37
the setting aside of the expulsion order is not an expression on
the merit of the matter. The respondent Institute is entitled to
take a decision in the matter in accordance with law.”4. Pursuant to the order dated 12th May, 2009 of this Court, the Senate
served a charge sheet dated 22nd May, 2009 on the Appellant with the
following allegations :-
“Show Cause Notice
Sh. Pranshu Raghuvansh had taken admission in B.Tech (IT) in
Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) Delhi in
Aug 2008 during the academic session 2008-09. The roll no.
allotted to him is 2008038. Mr. Pranshu is served with following
charges:
1. Whereas Mr. Pranshu is a day scholar but stayed in hostel for late
hours on April, 23rd night without taking any permission to do so.
2. Whereas the group consisting of Mr. Pranshu and two others,
namely Mr. Ishaan Maurya, roll no. 2008027, Mr. Shashank, roll
no. 2008048 (hereafter also called the group), was involved in a
conspiracy to commit, and committed, a very severe act of
academic indiscipline and dishonest:
i. The group entered the IIITD campus in night around 10.30 pm
on April, 23, 2009, with one member of the group signing a false
name and other members entering without signing at all, with the
intent of illegally accessing the question paper of the Theory of
Computing course, and then copying it. During the execution of
this plan some members of the group illegally entered into the
room of the faculty members who also has been coordinating the
academic activities, some members remained outside keeping an
eye on these proceedings, and some members of the group helped
in copying the paper.
ii. The group tampered/altered academic records in the file
maintained by the faculty member-some members of the group
LPA 580/2009 Page 6 of 37
actually altered the record, while the rest kept an eye on the
proceedings, providing security and support.
iii. The group altered electronic records maintained in the PC of the
concerned faculty member-some members of the group made the
changes, while the rest of the group kept an eye on the
proceedings.
iv. The group illegally took print out of some files from the faculty
member’s laptop-some members of the group gave the print
command, and some handled/carried the printouts.
3. Whereas Mr. Pranshu helped in covering the above serious
violations by hiding information about these serious indiscipline
acts from the concerned authorities, and also by complimenting
the security guard for facilitating the above acts and not
identifying the members the group in front of the Institute
authorities.
Mr. Pranshu is hereby served the above charges with show cause
as to why necessary disciplinary action, which may include
expulsion from the institute, should not be taken against him for
these severe acts of academic indiscipline and committing
offense, particularly in the light of the background that he was
involved along with Mr. Ishaan in another serious act of
academic indiscipline and dishonesty in Jan 2009, pertaining to
impersonation in an exam, to which he admitted in writing and
for which he was issued a warning. He may explain his position
in writing within one week of this notice, failing which the above
charges will be assumed to be true. This charge sheet along with
the responses will be deliberated upon by the Senate. For these
deliberations, he may be requested to be present in the Institute in
case the Senate requires any further information/clarifications.
The date of senate meeting will be duly informed.
Sd/-
Registrar and Secretary to the Senate.
IIIT DELHI.”
LPA 580/2009 Page 7 of 37
5. The Appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and
was given an oral hearing. Considering the reply and oral submissions of the
Appellant, the Senate deliberated on the matter on 1st July, 2009 and recorded
its conclusion in the minutes. The minutes of the Senate dated 1st July, 2009
are reproduced as under:-
“Relevant portion of the Minutes of the Senate Meeting held on
July, 1, 2009, 3 pm in IIIT Delhi.
Member Present:
Prof. Pankaj Jalote, Director, IIIT Delhi, Chairman
Dr. A. Subramanian, Registrar, IIIT Delhi, Secretary (non-
voting)
Dr. Veena Bansal, Faculty, IIIT Delhi
Dr. Astrid Kiehn, Faculty, IIIT Delhi
Dr. Mayank Vatsa, Faculty, IIIT Delhi
Dr. Richa Singh, Faculty, IIIT Delhi
Dr. Vikram Goyal, Faculty, IIIT Delhi
Mr. Sunpreet Arora, Student member, IIIT Delhi
Mr. Saurav Maitra, Student member, IIIT Delhi.
Dr. Saugat Sen, Cadence.
Members Present through Audio Conferencing
Prof. Kamal Karnapalam, IIIT Hyderabad.
Prof. Rajat Moona, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur.
Prof. Prem Kalra, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi.
Dr. C. Anantram, TCS,
Dr. Manish Gupta, Associate Director, IBM IRL.
Dr. Pawan Goel, Adobe Systems, Noida.
Item: To consider the disciplinary case against Mr. Pranshu
RaghuvashLPA 580/2009 Page 8 of 37
[Documents sent to Senate members earlier: Show cause
notices; their replies; the minutes of the disciplinary committee
meeting; the background note; statements of Shashank and
Pranshu given to the Senate; Statements of Ishaan, Pranshu, and
Shashank given earlier, statement of Honey; the High Court
order.]
The Senate Chairman (the Director of IIITD) first explained the
situation. He informed about the order passed by the Hon. High
court laying a process to be followed by the Senate, which is
being followed. As part of this process, a written charge sheet
was given to Mr. Pranshu Raghuvansh (dated: May 22, 2009),
to which he sent a written reply (dated: June 23, 2009). The
charge sheet, the reply, and other documents including the
statements of students and earlier recommendation of the
disciplinary committee, have been sent to the entire Senate.
Based on all the facts, as per the Hon Court’s order, the Senate
has been requested to give a reasoned order.
He further requested the Senate that in keeping with the spirit of
the Hon Court’s judgment, the case should be considered afresh.
He also requested the Senate not to be weighed down by the
possibility of further litigation, but act as it sees appropriate, in
a free and fair manner. He further requested the Senate to first
discuss the extent of the indiscipline involved, and thereafter
discuss the quantum of punishment, if any, to be given.
In response to some of the points made in the reply, the
Registrar informed the Senate (i) that Academic Institutions
have inherent powers to enforce and maintain discipline in
academic matters, and IIIT-D also has these powers to take
necessary actions to maintain discipline (Statute -7(3), 21 (2)),
(ii) Necessary steps were taken a few weeks ago with regard to
the security agency and the guard. (iii) The joint statement of
Ishaan and Shashank was not sent, as they had given separate
statements later after admitting that they had not explained the
complete picture earlier (in any case, this document was already
available to Mr. Pranshu from earlier proceedings).
During the course of discussions, Mr. Pranshu was invited to
the Senate meeting. He made some statements to the SenateLPA 580/2009 Page 9 of 37
(which he also submitted in written form). Mr. Shashank was
also invited and he stated that he has nothing more to add
beyond his written submission. Mr. Ishaan, even though he was
issued a show-cause notice and asked to be present for the
Senate meeting, neither sent a reply nor was present, even
though the show-cause notice clearly stated that if he does not
reply within a week, the charges will be assumed to be true (It
should be pointed out that after receiving the show cause notice,
he did ask for documents based on which the charges were
made, and these were provided to him).
After a discussion, the following conclusions were reached:
1. It is clearly established through various statements and
evidences that two major acts of indiscipline, both extremely
serious, were committed on the night of April 23rd 2009:
i. An illegal entry was made into Ms. Astrid’s room, and a
question paper for the exam was obtained. Not only do the
students involved in the act admit to this, Mr. Honey Singla’s
statement also shows that Ishaan knew some exam questions on
the night of 23rd.
ii. Academic records were altered-both in the hard copy folder
maintained, as well as the electronic file in the laptop of Ms.
Astrid. The actual records show this, and statements of Ishaan
and Shashank also established it.
2. Mr. Pranshu was knowingly a part of the group that planned and
committed the act of illegally entering the room of Ms. Astrid’s
and obtaining the question paper (their “common cause”). This
is established on the following grounds:
a. Shashank had said that Ishaan informed him and Pranshu after
meeting Ms. Astrid around 3.30 pm that “we can access TOC
exam paper as he has some mutual understanding with the
security guard of the night shift…. and we mildly accepted but
in a light way what he was saying” (Ishaan says that the “guard
was known to all three of us”). So, it is clear that a plan was
hatched early in the afternoon for the acts done in the night, and
Pranshu very much knew about it. (Ishaan, in fact, states that
Pranshu participated actively and entered the room and
LPA 580/2009 Page 10 of 37
tampered the records along with him). It may be noted that
Pranshu is not a resident of the hostel but was present in the
hostel on the said night.
b. In the initial statements given by Pranshu, Shashank, and Ishaan
there is no mention of “going to IIITD to play pool”. And this
was not suggested even in the interactions during Sat and Mon
(25th and 27th). This “purpose” is stated first in the written
statements submitted to the first Senate meeting on the evening
of April, 28, clearly suggesting that it is an afterthought and an
attempt to escape the consequences of their acts.
c. At no point in their statements or in interactions did Shashank
and Ishaan indicate that Pranshu was just an “innocent
bystander”. If there was an innocent man getting caught, surely
his friends (which they were, even according to Pranshu) will
try to help him so he does not get punished!
d. In general, the reasonable response of an intelligent person who
is not involved in an act as serious as this would be to leave the
place immediately, and report it to the right authorities. This
holds even more here since Pranshu was already under warning
from the Institute for an act of indiscipline and academic
dishonesty. Pranshu did neither-he stayed in the building till the
end and finally left with the group about 2 hours later (during
which the room was illegally entered into, the paper was stolen,
the paper was copied by hand, record were changed, printing of
records was tried, etc.). This again shows that he was very
much a part of the group.
e. It was said in the court documents that Pranshu “… saw the
conduct of the students, he went to the guard of the Institute and
informed him but he was indifferent”. But the guard mentions
no such reporting by Pranshu in his statement (and denied it
during interactions). If he had reported the incident to the
guard, even though the guard was indifferent (as Pranshu
claims), Pranshu could not have assumed that the guard will not
report it to the authorities, and so the natural thing expected of
him was to report it to the Institute authorities the same night
(e.g. by sending an email) or early next day, particularly if he
was not involved. The fact that he made no such attempt, even
LPA 580/2009 Page 11 of 37
after it was announced in the class that the break-in has been
discovered, indicates that he was very much a part of the act,
and not an innocent bystander who tried to stop the serious act,
as he claims.
f. It is evident that Ishaan had planned this act early in the
afternoon and came in the night to execute his plan-otherwise
he (both Shashank and Pranshu claim that he signed) will have
no reason to sign a fake name in the two night entry registers.
Since he came with the intent of “accessing the TOC paper”, he
would do everything possible to ensure that there are no
witnesses and will clearly not want to bring witnesses along-
and according to Pranshu “Ishaan suggested that we go to play
pool…” Furthermore, if an “innocent bystander” is witnessing
a crime, how can the person committing the crime be so sure
that the witness will not report the crime. As Pranshu’s
statement does not indicate any coercion/threat from Ishaan to
keep silent, it is clear Ishaan was certain that Pranshu will not
say anything- this kind of confidence can be there only if
Pranshu was a “partner in crime”.
g. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the present incident is
second offence committed by Pranshu and Ishaan. From the
incident of indiscipline in Jan 2009 it is already known that
Pranshu is willing to use dishonest means to help his friend
Ishaan, even when he himself has nothing to benefit from it. As
per Pranshu’s confession: “I, Pranshu, went to the exam…to
help my friend Ishaan. We planned that we sit close but Goel
Sir made me sit away from him. Finally, when paper
ended…we decided….that I should give my paper with his
name”. This whole plan was clearly to help Ishaan, as Pranshu,
even after getting a 0 in that test, passed comfortably and got a
B grade. So, he clearly seems to be inclined and willing to help
Ishaan even by participating in acts of sever
indiscipline/academic dishonesty where he has nothing to gain.
(For this act, as a concession/leniency he (and Ishaan) was only
placed under Warning. It is sad to note that this same
concession/leniency is now being twisted to suggest that it was
a minor act.)
LPA 580/2009 Page 12 of 37
h. The fact that Pranshu did not attempt some questions only
shows that he could not figure out how to answer them. Even
Ishaan did not attempt all questions. Answering the question,
even if known, requires knowledge and skill, particularly since
one cannot go to anyone else to get the solutions, that too at the
last minute.
3. On Friday afternoon, Pranshu, along with three others, went to
meet the guard at Dwarka Mor and complimented/thanked him
for not identifying the group earlier in the day when Institute
authorities had taken the guard to the hostel. The guard has
stated this clearly in his written statement (dated May 02). This
was a clear attempt to cover up their acts.
4. Though academic performance is not relevant while discussion
such acts of indiscipline/dishonesty, it may be mentioned that
Pranshu is not as good a student as he claims -in the Discrete
Maths course (which he refers to as theory course in first
semester), he stood 20 (and not 5th as he has claimed in court
documents), and overall in the first semester there are 16
students with a higher SGPA than his. In the Winter 2009
semester his performance was not good (in mid-sem of TOC he
got 5 marks out of max of 20). In the summer term he claims
he is “ranked first”. However, this is not true, and it should be
noted that the students in this summer term are those who failed
the subject earlier.
5. However, it could not be established with a reasonable certainty
that Mr. Pranshu was directly involved in tampering of
academic records (though Ishaan’s statement says that he was
involved in that also, the same is not corroborated by statements
of Shashank, who only refers to Pranshu’s involvement in this
as hearsay). Further, “staying in the hostel without permission”
is a minor offense, and as such the Senate felt that there is no
point in deliberating on it further.
6. Such an audacious act of indiscipline/academic dishonesty has
not been committed in Institutes like IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi, and
IIIT Hyderabad in the last many years, (as has been informed by
Senate members from these Institutes). There does not seem to
be any act of indiscipline in an academic institute that is worse
LPA 580/2009 Page 13 of 37
than this. Participating in such an act clearly deserves severe
punishment that is appropriate for this type of act. By not
severely punishing such an act, the Senate will not be
discharging its responsibilities properly, as it will only
embolden other students to venture into such acts, and
demoralize the faculty-this act has already created a fear among
the faculty and many are now keeping academic and official
records elsewhere.
7. During the discussion on quantum of punishment, a suspension
of one year was considered. However, most Senate members
felt that a one year expulsion is an appropriate punishment for
less serious violations that this, like copying in the exam etc.
(indeed, some senate members remembered reading about a
case where a student was suspended for one year for having a
chit with notes in his pocket during the exam). It was felt that if
such a serious act of indiscipline is not given a much stricter
punishment, then the institute will lose its ability to give
appropriate punishment to other “less serious” acts of academic
indiscipline, as this case will be quoted by students in future.
8. In view of the above the entire Senate (with one dissension)
agreed that the following punishment is just and fair for Mr.
Pranshu: He be expelled immediately from the Institute and his
program terminated. However, keeping in mind his future
career and in the interest of consistency with the decision for the
other two students involved in the act, he be given till next
morning after the order is issued, to withdraw, if he so wishes,
failing which the expulsion order should be issued. The
Director is authorized to take necessary steps in this regard.
9. As regards Mr. Ishaan and Mr. Shashank there is no change,
and their withdrawal from the Institute remains in effect.”
6. That the Senate also made certain observations, however, the same are
not being adverted to in the present appeal.
LPA 580/2009 Page 14 of 37
7. Challenging the decision dated 1st July, 2009 of the Senate of the
Respondent communicated by the Director vide memorandum No.III-
D/Aca/Misc./Case/001/2009/626 dated 10th July, 2009, the Appellant filed
writ petition being WP(C) No.10196/2009. This Court after hearing
arguments dismissed the same by a detailed order dated 7th October, 2009.
This order dated 7th October, 2009 in WP(C) No.10196/2009 is the order
impugned before us, along with prayers to attend and sit in third Semester
classes and the classes held thereafter, and to allow the Appellant to re-appear
in the theory and practical examinations held from 29th April, 2009 till 4th
May, 2009.
8. The contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant before us are
as under: Firstly, that charges 1 and 3 having been dropped against the
Appellant and as the Appellant had no mala fide intention in view of the fact
that he did not participate in copying and was only present at the time of
incident, the Appellant cannot be said to be involved in the said case of
leakage and copying as the only allegation proved against the Appellant is of
being present. It is further contended that as there was no intention to copy or
leak the examination paper on the part of the Appellant, charge two against
the Appellant also does not survive. Secondly, the Appellant has not been
afforded an opportunity to cross examine Ishaan and Shashank, thus the
LPA 580/2009 Page 15 of 37
principles of natural justice having been violated, on this ground alone the
order of expulsion is liable to be set aside. Thirdly, that the Senate is not the
competent authority to remove the Appellant and hence the order of expulsion
is illegal and void. Fourthly, the order of expulsion is too harsh and the same
be converted to expulsion for one year.
Case of No Evidence
9. Dealing with the first contention it is contended by the learned counsel
for the Appellant that the only allegation against the Appellant in the charge
sheet which survives is that he was present when the other two students, that
is Ishaan and Shashank were misconducting and that since he had neither
entered the room nor tampered with the electronic data or electronic records
of the faculty member, no allegation is proved against him even, as per the
findings of the Senate. It is further stated that with the kind of marks the
Appellant was scoring in the past, he could not be said to have the intention to
commit this misconduct. The misconduct if at all was by Ishaan and
Shashank, who had lower marks and that is why they had accepted the offer of
withdrawal from the course. Learned counsel for the Appellant to buttress his
arguments further stated that he informed the guard, whose duty was to keep a
watch and as he paid no heed to it, the Appellant went away. It is also
contended that as no right of appeal is provided in the Statute, the Writ Court
LPA 580/2009 Page 16 of 37
and thus the Appellate Court ought to appreciate the evidence and on the basis
of evidence on record, no case is made out against the Appellant.
10. We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for
the Appellant that since he had been scoring good marks in the past he had no
intention to do the tampering. As a matter of fact, in the two written
statements the Appellant himself is admitting his presence at the spot. The
conduct of the Appellant in neither stopping the other two students nor
informing the authorities speaks volumes of his complicity in the misconduct.
Further the Appellant also did not sign the entry register while entering the
pool room and only one of three signed that too in a fake name. It is the
admitted case of Appellant that he went to the pool room, however, he did not
sign the entry register. It is well settled that when two or more persons act ad
idem, each one is liable for the acts of the other, though they may be
performing different roles. The Appellant acted as a guard when the two
others were copying and thus was an equal participant in the misconduct and
was by no chance an innocent bystander. The Appellant could not have
played the pool alone when other two were copying. Moreover the Appellant
had been earlier in 2009 found using dishonest means to help his friend Ishaan
in the examination for which the two were warned by the Respondents. The
Appellant to absolve himself has stated during the course of arguments that he
LPA 580/2009 Page 17 of 37
informed the guard who did not pay heed to this. However, this contention of
the Appellant is wholly incorrect as the same is neither mentioned in his
statement dated 25th April, 2009 nor in the statement dated 28th April, 2009
which is an elaborate and well advised statement as is apparent from its
language. The contention that the Appellant informed the guard, for the first
time was taken up in WP(C) No.8680/2009. This is clearly an afterthought
and contrary to his statement dated 28th April, 2009 wherein he categorically
stated that he never had the guts to inform the authorities. Not only this, the
Appellant along with his other friends also thanked the guard for not
recognizing them on the next day. In this regard, the statement of the security
guard has also been recorded who denies that the Appellant ever told him
about the incident. As a matter of fact the guard, Abhishek Pandey in his
statement has stated that these boys thanked him for not recognizing.
Statement of Abhishek Pandey is reproduced hereinafter:
“I, Abhishek Pandey (Security Guard) S/o Shri Ramakant
Pandey, am residing at E-27, Navada Housing Complex,
Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
I was on duty in IIT at third floor on 23/04/09 from 9.45
PM to 6:10 AM, three students came at around at 10:30 PM,
one of them signed in the entry register, three students came at
around at 10:30 PM, one of them signed in the entry register
and other two entered with him. When I asked him, he told that
they are going to Lab and to play pool. During my duty I took
three rounds and they were found playing pool. At around
12:20 AM they left.
LPA 580/2009 Page 18 of 37
On 24/04/09 at about 1 pm Mr. R.S.Yadav, Supervisor
called me on phone and asked me to come. When I reached at
about 2 pm then I was told that there was some tampering with
a computer in a room at third floor in the night and I was taken
to the hostel with the Director and Hostel were in their casual
dresses and hence I could not recognize them. In the same
evening when I was going back to my home, four students
stopped me and thanked me for not recognising them, then I
recognised three students who came to play pool in that night.
On 24/04/09 I obtained leave for 25/04/09 from the
Director, as I was to go to station to see off my brother who is
in Army and was going to Mau from Delhi on transfer. On
27/04/09 in the morning I told the Director that four students
came to me and thanked me and I can recognise those students
who came in the night of 23/04/09. At that time examination
was going and I went with the Director and recognised three
students.
I can recognise them today also. It seems that the fourth
student was not present in the examination. Sir, I can recognise
those four students any where and any time. “
The contentions of the Appellant that charges 1 and 3 have been
dropped or that he had no intention to misconduct are fallacious. The Senate
has considered the totality of facts and circumstances before it. We find no
infirmity in the decision of the Senate on the basis of material on record.
Principles of natural justice not complied with
11. The learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended that
the principles of natural justice have not been complied with and he has not
been afforded a fair hearing in the matter. According to the Appellant since in
LPA 580/2009 Page 19 of 37
the first statements given by Ishaan and Shashank on 25th April, 2009 his
name was not mentioned, he could not have been held guilty without being
permitted to cross-examine Ishaan and Shashank. Reliance in this regard is
placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on the decision rendered in the
following cases: Khem Chand v Union of India & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300
(para 29), Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Sri Rama
Krishna Rice Mill, AIR 2006 SC 1445, K. Sathyasankara Shetty v.
Manglore University, Manglore & Anr., AIR 1992 Karnataka 79 (para 26),
Rajnish Kumar Rai v. The Gujarat University & Ors. (MANU/GJ/0728/
2008) (paras 34, 39) and Ram Chander Roy v. University of Allahabad &
Ors ., AIR 1956 ALL 40 (para 9).
12. The learned counsel for the Appellant has also challenged the impugned
decisions on the ground that the Senate acted as the investigator, the
prosecutor and the judge and thus there was violation of the principles of
natural justice. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cantonment Executive Officer and
Anr. v. Vijay D. Wani & ors., AIR 2008 SC 2953.
13. The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has
contended that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12th May, 2009 the
Appellant was duly served with the show cause notice, explaining the charges
LPA 580/2009 Page 20 of 37
against him, giving him time to file reply and a personal hearing by the
Senate. It is contended that as the statements and the pleadings of the
Appellant himself were inculpatory there was no need to provide the
Appellant an opportunity to cross examine Ishaan and Shashank. Reliance is
also placed on the decisions rendered in cases of Hira Nath Mishra and Ors.
v. The Principal Rajendra Medical College Ranchi & Anr., AIR 1973 SC
1260, State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481, Chairman Board
of Mining Examinations & Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee, AIR
1977 SC 965, Mansoor Alam v. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. CWP
3569/2000 and Ashish Bhateja v. Indian Institute of Technology & Ors.,
CWP 4042/1993.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Senate
has acted in its own cause is wholly fallacious. It is well settled that in
enquiries in Academic Institution strict principles of Evidence Act do not
apply and the decision is taken on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In the present case it was not expected of the Senate to have got recorded the
statements of the concerned persons through someone else by appointing
investigators and after having recorded the statements only then they could
have taken actions against the erring students. By taking the statements of
erring students in writing, it cannot be said that the faculty which were also
LPA 580/2009 Page 21 of 37
the members of the Senate, acted as an investigating agency and thus in terms
of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure it could not have
adjudicated the issue and decided the fate of the Appellant.
15. We are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the
Respondent that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in straight
jacket formula and the application thereof depends on the facts of each case.
Decisions in cases of indiscipline in academic institutions should be taken
promptly to maintain the high standards of discipline. While conducting such
enquiries a full fledged criminal investigation and trial with the procedure as
prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act has not to be
followed. After enquiry on the basis of the material collected, the same has to
be weighed on preponderance of probabilities. The Appellant has been
afforded enough opportunity for proving his case. In the present case, on the
basis of the statements of the Appellant himself there is evidence to come to
the conclusion arrived at by the Respondents and it cannot be said to be a case
of violation of the principles of natural justice. In the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khem Chand vs. Union of India
(supra) in the back drop of the facts of the case the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that an opportunity to deny the guilt and establish the innocence by
affording an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses ought to have been
LPA 580/2009 Page 22 of 37
afforded to the Appellant therein. In the case of K.Sathyasankara Shetty
(supra) the High Court quashed the proceedings as no time was given to the
Petitioner therein after giving the charge sheet so that he could prepare his
defence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission
Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (supra) held that no universal rule could be laid
down as to whenever the statement of departmental officer is pressed into
service for the purpose of adjudication, a right of cross examination would
arise. The Hon’ble Court quoted:
“In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd
Edition, Vol.4 page 3959 and 3968) the word “reasonable” has
been described as follows:
(i) What is ‘fair’ and proper under the circumstances.
(ii) The expression “reasonable” is not susceptible of a clear
and precise definition. A thing which is reasonable in one case
may not be reasonable in another. Reasonable does not mean
the best, it means most suitable in a given set of circumstances.
(iii) There is no point on which a greater amount of decision is
to be found in Courts of law and equity than as to what is
reasonable: It is impossible a priori to state what is reasonable
as such in all cases. You must have the particular facts of each
case established before you can ascertain what is meant by
reasonable under the circumstance – Lord Romilly. M.R.
Labouchere v. Dawson (1872) LR 13 Eq. CA. 325.”
LPA 580/2009 Page 23 of 37
In all the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant
it has been held that the compliance of principles of natural justice and fair
play has to be looked into on the facts of each case.
16. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P. Allahabad and another v. Bagleshwar Prasad and another,
AIR 1966 SC 875. The relevant paragraph 12 reads as follows:
“12. In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to
bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities
or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the
problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates,
and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic
Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the
evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of
unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but
cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the
question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities
and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational
institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem
and unless there is justification to do so, courts should be slow
to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed
by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the
validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under
Art. 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the
decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is
true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence
at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But
the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any
evidence must be reached after considering the question as to
whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify
the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals inLPA 580/2009 Page 24 of 37
such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom
charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to
defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunal,
must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would,
we think, not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all
considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary courts
of law. In the present case, no animus is suggested and no
malafides have been pleaded. The enquiry has been fair and the
respondent has had an opportunity of making his defence. That
being so, we think the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the order passed against the respondent.”
17. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi
and others, (1991) 2 SCC 716, paragraphs 22, 37 and 38 of which reads as
follows:-
“22. From this perspective, the question is whether
omission to record reasons vitiates the impugned order or is
in violation of the principles of natural justice. The
omnipresence and omniscience (sic) of the principle of
natural Justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary
decision in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the
applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule
of thumb or a straight-jacket formula as an abstract
proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case,
nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order/decision on
the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. It is
seen from the record and is not disputed, that all the students
admitted the factum of fabrication and it was to his or her
advantage and that the subject/subjects in which fabrication
was committed belong to him or her. In view of these
admissions the Enquiry Officer, obviously did not find it
expedient to reiterate all the admissions made. If the facts
are disputed, necessarily the authority or the EnquiryLPA 580/2009 Page 25 of 37
Officer, on consideration of the material on record, should
record reasons in support of the conclusion reached. Since
the facts are admitted, the need for their reiteration was
obviated and so only conclusions have been stated in the
reports. The omission to record reasons in the present case is
neither illegal, nor is violative of the principles of natural
justice. Whether the conclusions are proved or not is yet
another question and would need detailed consideration.
37. It is thus well settled law that strict rules of the
Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein
do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic
tribunal. It is open to the authorities to receive and place on
record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable
material facts though not proved strictly in conformity with
the Evidence Act. The material must be germane and
relevant to the facts in issue. In grave cases like forgery,
fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc. seldom direct
evidence would be available. Only the circumstantial
evidence would furnish the proof. In our considered view
inference from the evidence and circumstances must be
carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. The
mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one
another and even in straining them a little to force them to
form parts of one connected whole. There must be evidence
direct or circumstances to deduce necessary inferences in
proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless
there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which
to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish. In some
cases the other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical,
as if they had been actually observed. In other cases the
inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability. If there
are no positive proved facts, oral, documentary or
circumstantial from which the inferences can be made the
method of inference fails and what is left is mere
speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when an inference of
proof that a fact in dispute has been held established there
must be some material facts or circumstances on record
from which such an inference could be drawn. The standard
of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt “but” theLPA 580/2009 Page 26 of 37
preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference
that the fact must be more probable. Standard of proof
cannot be put in a straight Jacket formula. No mathematical
formula could be laid on degree of proof. The probative
value could be gauged from facts and circumstances in a
given case. The standard of proof is the same both in civil
cases and domestic enquiries.
38. From this legal setting we have to consider whether the
inference deduced by the Education Standing Committee
that the fabrication of moderators’ mark-sheets was done at
the behest of either the examinee or the parent or guardian is
based on the evidence on record. It is already found that the
examinees admitted the forgery of their concerned
moderators’ mark-sheets resulting the increase of marks to
their advantage. The fabrication of the moderators’ mark-
sheets was done after the scrutiny by the concerned
officials in the office of the State Board at Bombay and
before the moderators’ mark-sheets were taken out to Pune
to feed the computer. Why one is expected or interested to
wade through eighty thousand moderators’ marks-sheets to
locate only the 283 examinees’ mark-sheets and add marks
by fabrication? Unless either the examinee or parent or
guardian approached the fabricator; gave the number and
instructed him/them to fabricate the marks, it would not be
possible to know their number to fabricate. The act of
fabrication is an offence. Merely that it was done in one
subject or more than one makes little difference. Its gravity
is not mitigated if it is committed in one subject alone. This
is not an innocent act or a casual mistake during the course
of performance of the official duty as is sought to be made
out. It was obviously done as a concerted action. In view of
the admitted facts and above circumstances the necessary
conclusion that could unerringly be drawn would be that
either the examinee or the parent or guardian obviously was
a privy to the fabrication and that the forgery was
committed at his or her or parent’s or guardian’s behest. It
is, therefore, clear that the conclusion reached by the
Education Standing Committee that the fabrication was
done at the instance of either the examinees or their parentsLPA 580/2009 Page 27 of 37
or guardians is amply borne out from the record. The High
Court in our view over stepped its supervisory jurisdiction
and trenched into the arena of appreciation of evidence to
arrive at its own conclusions on the specious plea of
satisfying ‘conscience of the court’.”
Thus, in our view there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the
Appellant has been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend
himself.
Senate is not the competent authority to take a decision.
18. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant it is the Director
who is competent to take action against the Appellant if any and not the
Senate and thus the decision of the Senate dated 1 st July, 2009 is illegal and
void ab initio. Learned counsel for the Appellant refers to the Constitution of
the Senate and its powers in reference to Indraprastha Institute of Information
Technology-Delhi Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the IIIT Act, 2007)
and the Statutes framed under sub-section 2 (c) of Section 18 read with
Sections 22 and 23 of IIIT Delhi Act, 2007. It is further contended that as per
the Act and the Statute, the Director also does not have power of expulsion
and thus, there is no authority which can order expulsion of the Appellant
from the Institute. Learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance in this
regard on the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High
LPA 580/2009 Page 28 of 37
Court in the case of Rana Pratap Singh v. Deputy Registrar (Academic)
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors., AIR 1960 All. 256.
19. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
Respondents that Senate is the academic body of the Institute and a larger
body of which the Director as its CEO is the member. That the Appellant
himself opted for a hearing by the Senate before the Division Bench of this
Court in LPA 207/2009, pursuant to which the consent order dated 12 th May,
2009 was passed wherein the Senate of the Respondent Institute was directed
to give a show cause notice to the Appellant and pass a reasoned order in the
matter after hearing him and considering his representations. It is contended
by the learned counsel for the Respondent that this plea of the Appellant is
barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Reliance in this regard is
placed by the learned counsel for the Respondent to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab
Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680.
20. It is further contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that under
clause 14 of the Statutes, the Senate has power to consider the matters relating
to general and academic interest either on its own initiative or on a reference
of the Director and take appropriate action thereon.
LPA 580/2009 Page 29 of 37
21. Some of the relevant provisions of the IIIT Act, 2007 and the Statutes
are as under:
Section 2 (a): “Senate” means the Senate of the Institute, an
academic body.
(p) “Statutes”, “Ordinances” and “Regulations” means
respectively the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the
Institute for the time being in force; and
Section 9: “Officers of the Institute. – The following shall be the
officers of the institute:-
(1) The Director,
(2) The Deans;
(3) The Registrar; and
(4) Such other officers as may be declared by the Statutes to
be the officers of the Institute."
Section 10. “(3) The Director shall have all the powers
necessary for the proper maintenance of discipline in the Institute
and he may delegate any such power to such officer or officers as
he may deem fit.
(4) The Director may, if he is of the opinion that immediate
action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred
on any authority of the Institute by or under this Act and shall
report to such authority the action taken by him on such matter:
Provided that if the authority concerned is of the opinion
that such action ought not to have been taken, the Director shall
take such action as is necessary and feasible to annul the action
taken by the Director in excess of the powers conferred upon
him.
Provided further that any person in the service of the
Institute who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Director
under this sub-section, shall have the right to appeal against such
action to the Board of Governors within ninety days from the
date on which such action is communicated to him and thereuponLPA 580/2009 Page 30 of 37
the Board of Governors may confirm, modify or reverse the
action taken by the Director.
(5) The Director shall exercise such other powers and perform
such other functions as may be prescribed by the Statutes and the
Ordinances.”
Section 14: “Authorities of the Institute.- The following shall be
the authorities of the Institute:
(1) The General Council
(2) The Board of Governors
(3) The Senate.
(4) Such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes
to be the authorities of the Institute."
Section 19. The Senate.- “(1) The Senate shall be the
principal academic body of the Institute and shall, subject to the
provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance have the
control and regulation of, and be responsible for
a. Interacting with the Board of Governors through the
Director for formulation of academic policies and programmes to
realize the strategic plan of the Institute;
b. maintenance of standards of instruction, education and
examination within the Institute; and,
c. exercise of such other powers and perform such other
duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes;
(2) The constitution of the Senate and the terms of office of
its members shall be as prescribed.
(3) The Senate shall have the right to advise the Board of
Governors on all academic matters.”
Section 22. Statutes.- Subject to the provision of this Act, the
Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
LPA 580/2009 Page 31 of 37
(1) The constitution, powers and functions of the authorities and
other bodies of the Institute, as may be found necessary to be
constituted from time to time;
22. The relevant provisions of the Indraprastha Institute of Information
Technology-Delhi Statutes 2008 (hereinafter called “the Statutes” are as
under:
“Section-7. Power and Functions of Director
(1) The Director shall be entitled to be present at, and address,
any meeting of any other authority or any other body of the
Institute but shall not be entitled to vote thereat unless he is a
member of such authority or body.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Director to see that the provisions of
the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations are duly
observed and he shall have all the powers necessary to ensure
such observance.
(3) The Director shall have all the powers necessary for the
proper maintenance of discipline in the Institute and he may
delegate all such power to such officer or officers as he may
deem fit.”
“The Senate 14 (1) Subject to the relevant provisions of the
Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Senate shall, in
addition to all other powers vested in it by the Act or under the
Statues, have the following powers, namely: –
(a) To consider matters of general academic interest either
on its own initiative or on a reference from the Director
or Deans of the Institute and shall take appropriate
action thereon; and
(b) To frame such regulations as are consistent with the
Statutes and the Ordinances regarding the academic
functioning of the Institute, including discipline,
admissions, fees and other academic requirements.
LPA 580/2009 Page 32 of 37
(c) The above regulations framed by the Senate will take
effect after approval of the Board of Governors.”
“Section 21. Maintenance of discipline amongst the students of the
Institute-
(1) The powers regarding discipline and disciplinary action in
regard to the students of the Institute shall vest in the Director
who may delegate all or any of his powers, to such authority as
she/he may deem fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of her/his powers
relating to the maintenance of discipline and taking such action
as she/he may deem appropriate for the maintenance of
discipline, the Director may, in exercise of his powers, by order,
direct that students be not admitted to a course or courses of
study in the Institute or an institution for a stayed period, or be
punished with a fine for an amount to be specified in the order,
or that the result of the student or students concerned in the
examination or examinations, in which he has or they have
appeared, to be with held.”
23. We have perused the relevant provisions and we find that the Senate is
the principal academic body of the Respondent Institute and is thus
responsible for all its academic functions. Undoubtedly upholding the sanctity
of the examinations, inculcating and ensuring discipline amongst the students
is the foremost function of any academic body. That being the position it
cannot be said that the Senate has no power to take action against the students
in case of indiscipline. Clause 14(1)(a) of the Statute of the IIIT clearly
empowers the Senate to consider all issues regarding the academic
functioning either on its own initiatives or on reference by the Director and
LPA 580/2009 Page 33 of 37
take appropriate action thereon. Even if the Director under Clause 7 (3) of the
Statutes has all the powers necessary for the proper maintenance of the
discipline in the Institute, it does not divest the Senate which is a larger body
and the principal academic body to take action for indiscipline as per the Act
on its own initiative or on a reference by the Director. We have also gone
through the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rana Pratap Singh v.
Deputy Registrar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant
and find that the same has no application to the facts of the case. In the said
case the only body authorized to deal with the matter was the Academic
Council which had not done so and the Court held that the body which had
meted out the punishment had no jurisdiction.
24. We are also not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel
for the Appellant wherein he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by
their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs.
R.S. Nayak and Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1531. In the said case the trial of the
Appellant was transferred to the High Court vide order dated 16 th February,
1984 and thus the said directions were set aside as the same took away the
valuable right of statutory appeal of the accused. In the present case it is not
the case of the Appellant that the appeal from an order passed by the Director
of the Institute lies to the Senate and since the Senate has taken the action he
LPA 580/2009 Page 34 of 37
has lost the right of appeal. As a matter of fact the contention of the learned
counsel for the Appellant is that there is no remedy of appeal provided in the
Statute and hence this Court in its writ jurisdiction should act as an appellate
authority. Moreover, conscious of the fact that the Senate is the larger
academic body the Appellant himself acceded to a decision being taken by the
Senate before this Court in LPA 207/2009 on 12th May, 2009.
25. Learned counsel for the Appellant also attacks the composition of the
Senate saying that students are members of the Senate and thus he could not
have been afforded a fair hearing. We find no merit in this contention. The
Senate is a larger body and to safeguard the interest of students, it is neither
unfair nor uncustomary to have students as its members. In the present case
the Appellant is neither challenging the provisions of the Act or the Statute
nor has sought quashing of the composition of the Senate. The composition
of the Senate with amendment having been duly approved in the 8th meeting
of the Board of Governors and confirmed in its 9th meeting along with the
revised composition, we are not inclined to interfere in the same.
Expulsion is too harsh.
26. The last contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
order of expulsion is too harsh and he should at best be expelled for one year
also deserves to be rejected. It is not in the realm of the Writ Court or this
LPA 580/2009 Page 35 of 37
Court to sit in appeal over the decisions in academic matters. Their Lordships
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have time and again held that in academic
matters it is best to leave it to the academic authorities to take a decision,
keeping in view the best interest of the Institute. Reliance in this regard is
placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director
Studies & Ors. v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, 2008 (14) SCALE 554. The
relevant paragraph 32 reads as follows :-
“32. Before parting with this case, 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 vide Board of High School &
Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad & another vs.
Bagleshwar Prasad & another AIR 1966 SC 875 (vide para 12),
Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & others v. Chancellor, Allahabad
University & others AIR 1980 SC 2141 (vide para 17), Rajendra
Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & another AIR 1986
SC 1448 (vide para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in
the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts
should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of
the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some
statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity
in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy
or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair
means in the examinations.”
27. It may further be noted that the Senate on 1st July, 2009 while passing
the orders of expulsion had given the option of withdrawal to the Appellant.
LPA 580/2009 Page 36 of 37
However, he did not exercise it. Even during the course of hearing, this Court
had asked the learned counsel for the Appellant, whether he would like to
have his client withdraw his name from the Institute rather than face expulsion
in case the appeal is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the
Appellant stated that he had instructions to contest the matter on merits. The
Appellant’s father was also present in Court and he was also informed that in
the event the appeal was dismissed, it may have far reaching consequences on
the career of his son but the Appellant’s father stated that he would like to
have a decision on merits. We cannot also gloss over the fact that this is the
second incident of indiscipline by the Appellant. In this appeal this Court
cannot substitute its own decision by awarding lighter punishment of
expulsion of one year to the Appellant.
28. We find no merit in the appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B.LOKUR)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
mm
LPA 580/2009 Page 37 of 37