[ 3252 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 26064 0F 2025

Between:

AND

Ritik Kumar Dubey, S/o. Bijay Dubey, Age. 22 years, Occ. Student,

Enrollment No. 22FL1CHH010131, ICFAI Law School, No.8,114, Ncelkanth

Enclave, Dimna Road, Near LIC Colony, Mango Jamshedpur, East

Singhbhum District, Jharkhand- 831012. Presently residing in Room No.211,

SR Boys Hostel, Behind ideal Kitchen, Donthanpally, Hyderabad- 501203

...PETITIONER

1. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Dethi-

1 10002.

2. The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education (IFHE), Hyderabad,

Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad, Telangana- 501203.

3. The Pro-Vice Chancellor, Appellate Authority, The ICFAI Foundation for

Higher Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road,

Hyderabad, Telangana- 501 203.

4. The Registrar (Disciplinary Authority), The ICFAI Foundation for Higher

Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad'

Telangana- 501203.

5. Students Grievance Redressal Committee, The ICFAI Foundation for Higher

Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad'

Telangana- 501203.

6. The Legal Department, The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education (IFHE),

Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-

501203.

7. The Ombudsman Authority, The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education

(IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad,

Telangana- 501203.

8. The Director, Administration, The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education

(IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad,

Telangana- 501203.

9. The Vice Chancellor, The ICFAI .Foundation for Hig^ )r Education (IFHE),

Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, H',,erabad, Telangana-

501203.

10. The Disciplinary Committee, The ICFAI Foundation rr Higher Education

(IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad,

Telangana- 501203.

(Respondent Nos.6 to 10 are Pro Forma Parties)

..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndi: praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High : rurt may be pleased

to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in t le nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3, the z rpellate authority in

upholding the order of suspension vide Ref.No. IFHEIE 'c,1020412025 dated

09.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.4 through Ref.No. lFr- E/05/2025I35ADMN,

dated

'15.05.2025

against the Petitioner expelling for the S: nester Vll & Vlll of

Academic Year 2025-2026 from the DepartmenUFaculty/L t rarylMess/Club and

permanent expulsion from the hostel as illegal, arbitrary, rnconstitutional and

violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Cons itution of lndia apart

from being violative of principles of natural justice, and cor;equently set aside

suspension order vide Ref.No. IFHE/05|2025|35|ADMN dak:r 15.05.2025 of the

Respondent No.4 and the appeal order vide Ref.No. lFHErf rol02O4l2O25 daled

09.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 as well as the proceer ngs pending before

the Respondent No.5.

l.A NO: 1OF 2O2s

Petition under Section

'151

CPC praying that in the circunr: tances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may b<, tleased to suspend

the order vide Ref.No. lFHElO5l2025l35lADMN dated 15.05.20tt , of the Respondent

No.4 and the appeal order vide Ref.No. IFHE/PrclO2O4l2Oi't dated 09.06.2025

issued by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner, pending isposal of the writ

petition.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.A. NOt20F 2025

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the

Respondents to permit the Petitioner to pursue semester Vll and Vlll of Academic

Yeat 2025-2026 including the Departmenu Facultyi Library/ Mess/ club and Hostel,

pending disposal of the writ petition.

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay

on the proceedings pending before the Respondent No.5 against the Petitioner,

pending disposal of the writ petition.

I.A. NO: 4 OF 2025

Petition under section 15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be respectfully prayed

that in the event of interference with the impugned order vide

Ref.No.tFHE/ProtO2O4t2O25 dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Respondent

No.3/Appellateauthority,thisHon.blecourtmaybepleasedtodirectthe

Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to conduct NCP-1, Midterm Examinations' Class

Participation,NCP-3,End-TermExaminationsandtodispensewiththeattendance

requirement for the Petitioner for Semester Vll, BBA' LL B (Hons )course'

pending

disposal of the writ Petition'

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.NALIN KUMAR, Sr' COUNSEL, REP'

SRI S.GOUTHAM

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI M.P.KASHYAP, SC FOR UGC

CounselfortheRespondentNo.2to4:SRIA.VENKATESH,ST'COUNSEL'REP'

SRI S.BHASKARAN

The Court made the following: ORDER

3

HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI N! NDA

wITPTIONNo.26O64 0F 20:2,

ORDER

Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned sen r r designated

counsel representing Sri S.Goutham, learned cour sel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner on record, Sri M'P'Kas ryap, learned

standing counsel for UGC appearing on behalf of ' re respondent

No.1 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior desi(l rated counsel

representing Sri S.Bhaskaran, learned counsel :ppearing on

behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on record'

2. TheDetitionET ADDachedthe Court s(:kino oraver

as u nder

"...to issue a writ order or direction more partic-

nature of Writ of lYandamus declaring the actio-

No.3 the appellate authority in upholding

suspension vide Ref No. IFHE/Pro/0204/2025 dt

issued by Respondent No.4 througi

IFHE/ 05 I 2025 I 3 SADMN, dated 1 5.05. 2025 aqairr

expelling for the Semester VII & VIII of Acadt'

2026 from lhe Department/Faculty/Library/

I

permanent expulston from the hostel as il

'

unconstitutional and violative of the Func'

guaranteed under the Constitution of India a:

uiolative of principles of natural justice and r t

aside suspenston order vide Ref No. IFHE/05i

dated 15.05.2025 of the Respondent No.4 and

vide ReF No. IFH E/ProlO2o4/2025, dated 09.0€

Respondent No.3 as well as the proceedings pe-

Respondent No. 5 and Pass..."

a rly one in the

of Respondent

the order of

ed 09.06.2025

Ref No.

t the Petitioner

ric Year 202 5-

less/Club and

gal, a rb itra ry,

mental Rights

rrt from being

nsequently set

2o2sl3slADMN

e appeal order

1025 issued by

I ing before the

4

3.7 caof th atinerin br s theef

avm mdeth itioner rnthe adavit fil

the oetitioner tnsuDrtof theDresentwrit oetitlon, rsas

u nder:

The petitioner is a student of BBA LLB at ICFAI Law School

under "The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, Hyderabad,,.

On 11.04.2025, the petitioner participated in a peaceful protest

along with 150-200 students regarding the poor quatity of food

served in the university mess. On 12.O4.ZO2S, a complaint was

lodged against the petitioner and other students, and on

25.04.2025, a Disciplinary Committee was constituted. On the

same day, the petitioner was suspended from the hoster without

a prior hearing and was directed to vacate immediately.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the Disciplinary

Committee conducted an inquiry from 28.04.2025 to 07.05.2025

and submitted its report on 08.05.2025. Based on the said

report, the Registrar (the 4th Respondent) issued an order dated

15.05.2025 expelling the petitioner from Semesters VII and VIII

of the Academic year 2025-2026 and permanently from the

hostel. The petitioner's appeal dated 19.05.2025 before the

pro_

Vice Chancellor (the 3.d Respondent) was rejected on

09.06.2025 without granting an oral hearing.

:t

5

,,*f

.J Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Onr rudsman, who

directed him to first approach the Students' Griev nce Redressal

Committee under the UGC Regulations, t)23, Despite

compliance and a hearing before the SGRC on

-))-.07.2025,

no

decision was communicated to the petitioner. Tlr ,

Ombudsman

thereafter held that the appeal was not maintainat le. Hence, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4, PERUSED THE RCORD:

A, The relevant portion of the iDuqned orer rssed bvi

resoondent No.4vide Ref.No.IFHE/O5/20r-;/35/ADMN,

dated 15.O5.2025 aqainst the Detitioner expr llifor the

semesters VII &VIII of AcademicYear 2025 25from the

Department/ Facultv / Librarv/Mess/Club anE Dermanent

expulsion fromthe Hostel as extracted hereun! er:-

As per the Report dated O8.O5.2O25 subl itted by the

Disciplinary Committee constituted vade Of f ce Order No.

IFHE/04/2025l28/ADMN dated 25.04.20:z ;, you have

been found guilty of misconduct and violation of

discipline under Part-II, Rule 4 (i), (iv), (v) & (x) of the

ICFAI Foundation For Higher Educr| ion (IFHE)

Hyderabad, Students Conduct and Discipline Rules, 2O19

and as such the following punishment is awilded.

Orderof Punishent:

Expulsion for the Semesters VII & VIII of Lr ademic year

2025-26 from the

Department/ Faculty/ Library/ Mess/Club anr permanent

expulsion from the Hostel with immediate :ffect as per

Part tV Rule-7 (vii) of ICFAI Foundation for Higher

6

5o1;:,,."

(rFHE) students,

conduct

and Disciptine Rutes,

lli.""ll"[r"ill;

iiil'i,.tl".:rder

mav be prererred

w*hin r0

S",,T,fi

'"i

jL:i;;;,TSS,1..=.*,,lflJr:i j"."li.,IlJ j.i*#

Chancelor. lrgi,io;h;;",1^Pl:f

(Dr ) Muddu vinay, pro-vice

are delegated.

tne powers

of thc Appellat" nrtr,o.,i)

B

A

o

or e.

r

sr

t

vntrtinfr

snt

erofthaelat

e o.3In h

e

onVd

ldin

he

R ,IFEProo422

t

datedo9.o6.2025lsextracthereunder: -

,';,, 1331"i]"d

bv the same, the Apperare has submitted

4. The Appellant

ad

statement about the;[i::"nd,

his

suirt and confession

his

5. The contention

*;'jxt, ffi

;l"l!, jl!, ?ql;T .ti?,*o';T

appetlant is one or a'.ol-'Tte

establishea ir,ut ftr.

tre'rrimseiiir;;;;;',1.Toot

cause of the incident anJ

.ou g"th"ri;;";'ff"t1

tle series of events ttrat reJ io

the Mr. piyush,s

...5'

and stoganeering

in rront oi

ttre CCfV,foli-,

!Estctence and the Reooit

""y,

ti"i

appettant is rever -, .11-9,-:"id"nt

for the same. The

incident.

vrotator and masterminas

or irtJ

:o#1t tf 'ffi:"1;;.lll!f" srounds raised in the presenr

documentary'.u".ori"nl"ll-t,

-'1",

not based on either

been raisJd'""j;;;r";

orar evidence but aooear to have

basis of *;;;3";;.'i#':t-"

ot the appear without any

were not iui.J",ur,rre

9rounds raised bv the appellant

proceedings

uno .unno,tl1 -":fli9:.t

during the snqgiry

appeat ror- ,r," i,.r, ii,i'" "ij:iTJ,l"^o .to_be

raised in the

perusa r or the D isci p r, r. rr"i"ri,,1:J,

#;Jrii,fl

":ij":rJ

I-"Bi!r.:m*- ::F ] --]I:

i -*

7

support for the case of the appellant on . ny one of the

grounds raised in appeaL

7. The procedure of Disciplinary Committee vas as per the

established procedure and rules. There s nothing on

record to show that there has been any v olation of the

principles of natural justice and fair play d,

-ing

the entire

proceedings preceding this present appeal.

B. The Disciplinary Committee Report is bi sed on sound

reasoning and based on the documents bror- ght on record.

The record shows that the DC has given opp rrtunity durrng

the proceedings to the appellant to defend I I nself.

9 The misconduct as alleged and proved s severe and

grave in nature and warrants the punishnt, rnt which was

awarded through ref. 2nd cited. in tlr: interest of

maintaining discipline and order in the c. I rpus where a

large number of students studying. Acadt: nic institution

definitely require a standard of its own an,l its tranquility

cannot be allowed to be vitiated at any cost. The Appellate

Authority views that the incident is very s€ I ous in nature

and any matter which is detrimental to the academic

environment and any misconduct which disrupts any

activities of the IFHE University or harms ll e interests of

students and employees of the Universil ' will not be

to le rated .

10. That this is not only the present case, tl e appellant is

habitual violator of the IFHE Rules and .: involved in

disciplinary cases earlier and he was issue two penalty

orders for violatton of student conduct rules.

In view of the above, the punishment ar^ arded in the

present case is commensurate with th,' gravity of

misconduct proved against the appellarr:. Therefore,

this Appellate Authority do not find ar y reason to

interfere with the Order issued throrr yh Ref. No.

IFHE/OS/2025/35/ ADMN, dated LSICt i/2025 and

the same is upheld in toto and ttr,: appeal is

dismissed.

F

8

heeren dbtheeitionrtso

he enwr e aarN3isextra

hereunder: -

The scifiavermnmadbtheetiloner I

3. I submit that lam a bona fide student pursuing

my

BBA.LLB., at ICFAI Law_Schoot, ,"d* R;r;;denr No.2,

with Enrotment No. 22FLICHHO1b13i. I fia-v"J"matntaineO

agood academic record

f:l_1.y" .Oeen

Oiligenfly pursuing

my studies with sincerity. and dedication. f ir.in". submit

that My participation in the events r"iJi"q tJ tnis petition

was solely as part of a coilective, peacefur ur,io.i to address

genuine grievances regarding tne rniue.sttvt'i..,[i,"r,

which d irectly impact studentsi hea f tf.r I n

j"*"r

r'_ 0", nS.

t

D

u ofte

are extracted hereunder:-

enwrititina raos.67an9

7. I submit that the Respondent No.4, aFter reviewing the report

o_f Respondent No.10, fou.nd me guilty of misclnduct under part_

\,

Rules 4(i), (iv), (v), and (x)' or tne

-University

Rutes.

.C:T9^q_r9_n,Lr.

the punishment

'

order

-

,tO" Ref. No.

IFHE/ 05 / 2025I35/ADM N dated 1 5. 05. 2O2i was' issued, expeili n g

me from Semesters VII and VIII (Academic Vear 2O25_2026) and

t

me and other students.

6. I submit that the Responden

28.O4.202s to 07.05.2025

08.05.2025 to Respondent No.

t No. 10 conducted its

and submitted its

4, recommending

ac

I

I

I

inq u iry from

report on

tion aga inst

t

her sent emails d

il

it

it

Subsequently, my brot ated 10.05.2025 and

15.05.2025 to Respon o. 9, seeking urgent intervention

rauma and d isru ption to my academic

rogress caused by these proceedings.Copies of the emails

ated 10.0S.2025 and15.05.2025 sentby the brother of the

Petitioner are annexedhereto as Annexure P-2, which may be

read as part and parcelof this Affidavit.

n

due to the mental t

dent N

p

d

9

barring access to the Department, Faculty, Lib

- rry, Mess, and

Club, along with permanent expulsion from the hostel, as per

Part-lV, Rule 7(vii) of the University Rules. I srlrmit tat the

unishment is ton x ve esoeciallvr n

qiven the facts and circumstances for whicl protest was

held. The copy of the order oF punishment issuec :y Respondent

No. 4 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-3, and r- tpy of rules of

Respondent No.2 university are annexed hereto i s Annexure P-

4, which may be read as part and parcel oF this A't davit.

9. I submit that the Respondent No.3 summari y rejected my

appeal by an order dated 09.06.2025 vide ReF.No.

IFHE/Pro/0204/2025, solely based on the report lf Respondent

No.10, without granting me an opportunity of ( ral hearing to

defend myself against the said allegations. Copy ,,f the Order of

Respondent No.3 dated 09.06.2025 is anne < :d hereto as

Annexure P-7, which may be read as part an( parcel of this

Affidavit.

E. TheUGCReoulation s(Viii) is extracted h6 reunder:-

s(viii) The SGRC shall send its report with

recom menda tions, if any, to the competent . Jthority of the

institution concerned and a copy thereof tc, the aggrieved

student, preferably within a period of 15 working days

from the date of receipt of the complaint.

F. The counter affidavit filed bv the resDondr:Nos.2 to 4

and in Darticular Dara Nos.1to L7 ar e extracted

hereunder:-

14. It is submitted that the Respondent No. L0lDC in the

aforementioned report after a thorough invr_';tigation and

providing an opportunity to all those involved ir the incident,

categorically held that the actions of the Petitione and the other

two suspended students has culminated into a

- rob gathering

and sloganeering in front of Mr. Piyush's/Complain..tt's residence

as evidenced by the CCW footage. The DC repc,r t has posited

that the Petitioner is a level- 1 violator and mast( rmind behind

the events that unfolded on LL.04.2025 The DC a;o noted that

I

10

the Petitioner is having previous record of violations of Student

Conduct Rules and that he was penalized with penalty orders for

violation of student conduct rules.

15. It is submitted the Respondent No.4 after perusing the

report submitted by DC/Respondent No. 1O found the petitioner

guilty of misconduct under Rules a(i), (iv), (v) and (x) of the

IFHE Rules vide Punishment Order dated 15.05.2025 and

expelled the Petitioner from Semester VII and VIII (Academic

Year 2025-2026) and barring access to the other ancillary facility

and permanent expulsion from the hostel as per Rule 7(vii) of

the IFHE Rules. As the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent No.2

witnessed the debacle unfolding before him on 11.04.2025, he

rightfully recused himself from acting as the Appellate Authority

and communicated the same vide Email dated 15.05.2025. fhe

Pro-Vice Cha ncellor/Respondent No.3 was designated as the

Appellate Authority and the petitioner filed his Appeal on

19.05.2025 seeking revocation of the punishment

Order directed

by Respondent No.3 on 15.05.2025.

16. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority considering the

Appeal filed by the Petitioner vide email 19.05.2025, DC report

dated 08.05.2025 and the entire record placed before the DC

upheld the Punishment Order dated 15.05.2025. The Appeilate

Authority has rightfully noted that the Petitioner in this present

Appeal and in the earlier round investigation has failed to place

any oral or documentary evidence to countenance his grounds

nor to disprove the evidence on record before the DC. Therefore,

the Petitioner failed to disprove even in the Appeal that he was

the root cause for the culmination of the mob gathering and

sloganeering on 11.04.2025 despite been given sufficient

opportunity to present his case In fact, the petitioner did not

contest/cha lleng e the manner or conduct of DC proceedings or

any violation of principles of natural justice but instead has

confessed and clearly admitted in his Appeal dated 19.05.2025

before the Appellate Authority, IFHE that he was at the fore front

in leading the said mob.

17. It is submitted that the misconduct that the Petitioner is

charged with is serious and grave and warrants the imposition of

penalties enumerated in the Punishment Order dated 15.05.2025

as per the IFHE Rules in the interests of maintaining discipline

and tranquillity in a campus which is housing a large number of

students. An eminent institution such as IFHE must abide by

11

-fri.r

qtandards and rules, and the vitiation of t lose cannot be

:i;^,^;;l^ the larqer interest of the students, far: lty and staff of

lni'inititrtion. The Appellate Authority also ac< towledges that

inl in.ia"nt in question is very serious in rr rture and was

.r.i.imental lo the conduciveness of the e I rironment and

II*oio.it"o the safety on campus which wor-ll have be met

i,]il rt.ing"nt action to prevent any future debacl :s'

R ffidavit filed bhtitio1l in oarticular

1 1n2are Cer: -ed fl

af

1t1. The contents of Paragraph 14 are vehem(l ltly denied' No

Inr.o"r were ever formally informed to the Pel i ioner, nor was

,n" OC report provided to him' The Petitioner vas denied the

^.,nortunity

to cross-examine any witnesses an( was not shown

irlJirr"g"d

CCTV footage, thereby making it in tossible for him

io-erreciivety

defend himself. The DC report ats ) fails to show

,,inat speciric evidence was gathered against th(

petitioner

and

*lat statemenis were recorded against him' Tte report's own

i,niinqr show that the Petitioner was preserr at the mess

.unt"6n because he was "called" by Mr' Ch' rdan, the site

-unug"t,

to discuss the matter, not with an1 prior intent to

lr"uti u disturbance Furthermore, the report i self notes that

ft.,l

p"tition"r "calmed" one of the other studenrr, Mr' Skandan,

*ni.n

"ttuOtishes

his positive role. At a bare g erusal, the DC

.eoort fails to provide any specific allegations th; t the Petitioner

.uit"O o|- instigated other students. The conr: lsion that the

patition"l. is a "level-1 violator" and "mastermi rd" is baseless

and witnout sufficient proof. The two previous r olations of the

i"tition"r, which have no bearing on the pr:;ent facts and

circumstances, are also irrelevant to the r ravity of the

punishment'

17. The contents of Paragraph 15 are not sp.

but the Respondents are put to strict proof of

iontrary to the record. It is submitted that the pL

dated 15.05.2025, issued by Respondent

lFHElO5/2025l3S/ADMN,

was a non-speaking

mention of the specific charges, findings, or evid(

petitioner except for stating the punishment imp:

petitioner. This is a clear violation of legal prin -

:ifically denied,

a ny averments

n ishment order

No. 4 vide

rrder, with no

'rce against the

;ed against the

ples of Natural

72

Justice. It is trite to mention that no DC report was ever

produced to the Petitioner.

28. The Petitioner denies the averments in Paragraph 27 of the

counter-affidavit, which falsely claims that the Appellate

Authority's order was a detailed and speaking order and that the

Petitioner confessed his guilt. It is submitted that a bare perusal

of the Appellate Authority's Order dated 09.06.2025, (Ex.-P7)

itself makes it evident that Respondent No. 3 merely extracted

the Disciplinary Committee (DC) report and rejected the appeal

by superficially stating that the Petitioner had admitted his guilt.

The Appellate Authority failed to give due consideration to the

Petitioner's detailed and nuanced contention in his appeal dated

19.05.2025 (Ex-P6), wherein he stated:

"I conFess that I was present during the gathering and was at the

front. Please let me sincerely clariFy that my presence was more

to vent my frustration rather than hold any malicious or violent

intent. My involvement stemmed solely from the desire to

address a legitimate concern the suspected adulteration in the

paneer served in the mess during the past few days prior to that

fateful night. I am confident that there would be no evidence

that I behaved vehemently or aggressively or engage in any

direct conflict with Mr. Piyush Jais. In fact, there was no

interaction whatsoever between him and me during the incident.

As for the crowd that gathered later, I wish to emphasize that I

did not instigate or provoke any group action. I had made just

one phone call and that too to my elder brother. It is true that I

orally shared my frustrations with fellow mess diners who were

passing by. While I was at the Front of the mob when it moved

towards Mr. Piyush Jais residence, I did not indulge in any

sloganeering or shouting. Along with a few other students of

ICFAI Law School, I consciously attempted to calm the

atmosphere and urged fellow students to exercise restraint while

waiting for our Vice Chancellor to come and meet with us. This

can be verified with the Vice Chancellor himself, who will

certainly share his observations of my behaviour at that time

when we were conversing with him while the mob was all around

us. "

The Appellate Authority's decision was a rejection in a routine

manner without any independent application of mind, especially

given the extreme nature of the action taken against the

Petitioner. It is also petinent to submit that the Respondent No.

€

13

3 arbitrarily rejected the appeal without providir g the Petitioner

with an opportunity for an oral hearing. An orz t hearing was of

important because the Petitioner was not awatr of the specific

charges or the evidence that was gathered .( ainst him. The

Petitioner would have responded positively and effectively

defended himself had the Appellate Authoril, provided any

evidence against him during an oral hear ng which the

Respondent No.10/Disciplinary Committee and i 3spondent No.4

failed to do so.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. The learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the

oetltionainlv outs-forth thefollowinq

suDport of the petitioner's case.

i) The order impugned, dated 09.06.2O25 rassed by the

3'd respondent and the order impugned, dat :d 15.O5.2025

passed by the 4th respondent are orders 1r rssed in clear

violation of principles of natural jus:ice, without

application of mind, in a routine mecha rical manner,

denying a reasonable opportunity to the p(: itioner herein

to put-forth petitioner's defense and t lerefore, the

petitioner is entitled for the relief as pray ed for by the

petitioner in the present writ petition.

ii) The order of the appellate Authority, dat :d O9.O6.2O25

is not a detailed speaking order. The respc ndent No.3 is

not justified in concluding that the petition(:

,

was guilty. A

1 ubmissions in

74

bare perusal of the appellate Authority's order, dated

09.06.2025, Ex.P7 itself makes it evident that respondent

No.3 merely extracted the Disciplinary Committee(DC)

report and rejected the appeal by superficially stating that

the petitioner had admitted his guilt without deciding the

appeal preferred by the petitioner andependently without

application of mind in a simple routine casual manner.

iii) The appellate Authority failed to give due

consideration to the specific pleas put-forth by the

petitioner. The petitioner's appeal, dated 19.O5.2025

preferred agaanst the impugned order, dated 15.O5.2O25

issued by the 4th respondent was rejected mechanically

without assigning any reasons by the 3'd respondent. The

petitioner was not provided with copies of the

complainant's witness statements or the evidence relied

upon by the respondent No.1O, which prevented the

petitioner from effectively putting-forth the petitioner's

defence, the respondent No.4 mainly relied upon the

report of the respondent No.1O and held that the

petitioner was guilty of misconduct' However, the copy of

the report of the respondent No.10 was not furnished to

the petitioner herein despite the petitioner's request

thereby disabling the petitioner from defendLr rg himself'

Further, the petitioner was denied an opportu rity of oral

hearing before the appellate Authority'

15

passed

cryptic

iv) The orderimpugned

dated 15.05'2025

is

by the 4th 'espondent'

order Pasr; :d without

same is uPt eld bY the

was not

a

assigning anY reasons and the

apPellate AuthoritY

dated O9'06 '2025'

i.€.,the 3'd resPondent vide order'

placing reliance onthe r( port of the

5slrr:d on the

resPondent No'10' which

petitioner' Thus, both theorders imPugned are in clear

eafrsidsbtsnsh an

violation of principtes of natural iustice'

B ot

nlr:halfofet

tor onatecoud nselADaflno

n desl

oetitionercontendsthaWritPeti ho! I be atlowed

t tiosu

iternh enl-Nititin

araetrbthee

lrDearrnon

n

6The Iearnedstordeslqtdco

lalr1 lrelianon

behalfoftherespnentNos.2to4o

eaeetsetnthe conr e avit filed on

-

luts-forth the

tafi

hrsod os. 4t

bho

t

ons

llowlnosubmrssl

r

16

i) The respondent No.4, after perusing the report

submitted by the respondent No.lO, found the petitioner

guilty of misconduct under Rules 4(i), (iv), (v) and (x) of

the IFHE Rules and vide Punishment Order, dated

15.O5.2025 expelled the petitioner from Semesters VII

and VIII of the Academic Year 2025-26, since the

petitioner was found to have committed serious and grave

misconduct. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order

impugned, dated 15.O5.2025 passed by the 4th

respondent herein.

ii) The order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent,

dated 09.06.2025 also warrants no interference, since the

appellate Authority considered all the pleas put-forth in

the appeal. Further, the petitioner in petitioner's appeal,

dated 19.O5.2O25 admitted before the appellate Authority

that the petitioner was at the fore front of leading the

mob. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed

by the appellate Authority.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

senior desiqnated counsel aopearino on behalf oLthe

77

resDondent Nos.2 to 4 contendsthat Writ ,etition needs

to be dismissed.

7. Learned seniordesiqnated counsel aooearinqon

behalf of the responnt Nos.2 to 4 Dlacedrlia n ceoj ther

iudqment of the ADexCourt reoorted in AIR2012 SC

33 o

cU

e 12 in VicehncellrrUfUl Ga sid as

MALEOD ntn ulaara

No.19, which is extracted lrereunder:-

19. The [urn of events, given the lapse of tinr, did not form a

legal basis for rnterdicting completion of th€ inquiry against

quietus to the entire episode, it should harq l keot in mind

that maintenance of discioline in the Univt rsitv iseq ua llv

nfr nduciva m ntrorment and that

the larger interests of the academic comr!unitv are more

centraIthanthe individual interests ol a student, In

Varanaseva Sanskrit Vishwavidvalaya ard Another v.

Raikishore Tripathi (or), (19771L St.-: 279it was

observed that in matters of discipline or a( ministration of

heiernalairs of a Unive the urts should be

most reluctant to interfere.

8. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court reoo,rted in (1993)

4 SCC 727. dated 01.10.1993 in Manaqanq !i rector, ECIL,

Hvderabad and Others Vs. B.Kar ar and)thers and in

Darticular at Dara Nos.29 and 3O, it is obserr,, rdas undert-

29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry oFficer is

not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent empl,),ee has a

right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report I efore the

disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions witi .egard

to

the guilt or innocence of the employee with regir d to the

18

charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the

employee's right to defend himself against the charges

levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer,s report

before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the

charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee

to prove his rnnocence and is a breach of the principles oF

natu ra I j ustice ".

30.Hcn therncalental (rrrestions resed ahove mav hp

a nsweredas follows:

(i) Sincehe denial of the reort of the InouirvOfficer is a

denial ofreasonable ooortunitv and abreach of the ociples

ural follows thath rules n

which denY the reDort to theemolovee areaqainst the

orinciolesof natural iusticeand, therefore,invalid. The

dalinerr rant emnrraa reri I I flra;a bett of thre n

reDortven if the statutory rules do njermit the furnishinq

of the reoort orare silent on the subiect.

( ii) The relevant portion

follows:

of Article311( 2 ) of the Constitutionrs as

"(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed

or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been

informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable

opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges."

Thus the Article makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the

employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article,

however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the

inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or

reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be Followed in awarding

other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the

employee. What is further, Article 311(2) applies only to members of

the civil services of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of

a State or to the holders of the civil posts under the Union or a State.

In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others

aregoverned by their service rules. Whenever,therefore. the

service rulescontemDlate an inouirv before a ounishment is

w whenhe InutrOfficer in h

thedlinouent emolovee will have theriqht to receivea uthorttv

the Inouirv Offlcer'srenortnotwithsta nd inthe natureottheo

punishment.

l"'-+-

19

9. In theiudqmentof the HiqhCourt of (tssa repo) d

in MANU/oR/olag/2O14, dated28.03.2O1.. in Gopinath

Sarap Vs.Controller of Examinationand irr oarticular at

4. The following principles can be called from the afor< said English and

Supreme Court

(i) The proceeding against an examinee on a charge c,l malpractice is a

quasi-judicial proceeding. It affects his future and if : ry adverse view

is taken by the disciplinary authority it might blast h ! career. Though

the proceeding is administrative it is quasi judicial in ature inasmuch

as the career of the examinee is in issue.

ii) Where there are statutory or codified rules tl e quasi_judicial

proceeding will be enquired into in conformity with thc,: e rules.

(iir) Where there are no such rules the principles of n;,ural justice will

be followed in making the enquiry keeping in view :he fict that it

involves the determination of a vital question integrali connected with

rhc righls of the examinee.

Dara No.4, it is observed as under:-

and law. (iv) In making such

ascertain both Facts

enquiry the authorit', might have to

(v) In doing so it must act in good faith.

(vi) The authority must fairly listen to both sides.

To implement these principles, the examinee will be nformed about

thc accusation made against him together with the lj atement of the

allegations on which they were based. He should also c:t a reasonable

opportunity of stating his own case by way of ex ) anation to the

charges.

10. In theiudqment ofthe Hiqh Court of P,:na reDorted:t

in 2O16 SCCOnLinePat 7383.dated20.o.4.20L6inAlt

IndiaStudentSFederaIOn hi

S

.lek

Anand,th rouqhA

Mberhar S ouIV e e (rfihran

20

Othersin particularparas.5nd54, itis observed as

u nder: -

57. It is, thereFore, not only permissible, but may become necessary,

in a given case, for the. High Court to issue, by invoking iis

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of t-ndia,

a direction to the authority concerned how to exercise its dlscretion

and/or the manner in which the discretion ought to have been

exercised. The relevant patna

High Court CWJC No.3834 of 2016

df.20-O4-2016 paragraph of Comptroller and Auditor General of

india (supra) is being reproduced as follows:-

"19. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India

exercising their jurisdiction under Article 216 have the powei

to issue a writ of mandamus or a *.it in the nature of

mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions

where the Government or a publiJ authority has failed to

exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred

upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the

Government or has exercised such discietion mala fide or on

irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant

considerations and materials or in iuch i -an.re. as to

frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the poliiy

for implementing which such distretion has been conferred. In

all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court

can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 issue a

writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of rnanaamus or pass

orders and give directions to compel the performarrce in a

proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the

Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order

to prevent injustice resulting to the conceined parties, the

Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the

Government or the public authority should have passed or

given had it property and lawfully exercised its discreiion.,,

58. he present case reveals an extremely sad approach of

educationists. In such an emergent case, as the one at hand _

when

every moment is painful to pass

-

if the Court delays or hesitates to

step in and issue appropriate directions, the consequences would be

too disastrous inasmuch as it may severely shake the confidence of the

people in the ability oF the Courts to maintain rule of law and do

justice. Hence, in view of the fact that the announcement or

publication of the result of the examinees, who have already appeared

in their respective examination, has been stayed by this Court, any

further delay may cause immeasurable harm to the candidates, who

7

27

have already appeared as examinees in their respecti

We, therefore, direct that the Principal, Patna Worr

condone the attendance of all those students, who

attendance to the extent of 70o/o. We also direct th'l

Patna Unaversity, to condone the attendance of thc:

have inadequate attendance up to 600/o. All these stl

to appear in their respective examinatlons within a :

from today. The results of the examination of the stt

already appeared in their respective examinations, t

declared along with the results Patna High Court -

2016 dt.20-04-2016 of examinations of those :

inadequate attendances have been directed to be cotr

entlre result shall be declared within the scheduled

students do not suFfer any further. Upon publication c

Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University and the

Women's College, shall lay before this Court a compr l

as enable thls Court to give such further directi )

warranted by the facts and attending circumstancl

CASC.

'e exa m in ations.

en's College, to

rave inadequate

Vice Chancellor,

3 students, who

lents be allowed

:riod of 15 days

ients, who have

e published and

,A/lC No.3834 of

tudents, whose

oned by us. The

iate so that the

' the results, the

Principal, Patna

)ensive re port so

r(s) as may be

; of the present

11. tn the .ludoment of comosite Hioh Court

reDorted in 2oo2 (2) ALD 827. dated O6.O2.OO2 inlibv P.

P

ChackoVs.Princioal. Mediciti School of Nl r was

held that not all disciolinarv proceedinqs arequasi-iudicial

in nature. Where students act errantlv andj ction is taken

aqaanst them. the same will termedas an tdministrative

a ctionnot necessarilv reouirinq full comDli rnce with the

orincioles of naturaI iustice. However,! xpulsion and

rustication entail serious cavil consequence th ereforeln

such cases rr nct uraustic€ have to beD D of natles i

follow v re extrar :ted below:

t:

22

29. It is well settled that a student of a College or a School

cannot be rusticated without following the principles of natural

justice and without conducting enquiry. In Board of High School v.

Ghanshyam, AiR 1962 SC 1110, a Statutory Board cancelled

examination results of three candidates and debarred them from

appearing at the examinations for one year. The charge against them

was that they used unfair means in the examinations. The action was

impugned as violating principles of natural justice which was upheld by

the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court a Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether or not the College

rules provide for'audi alteram partem'when a student's examination is

cancelled as the authority would be acting quasi-judicially principles of

natural justice should be followed. It was laid down that:

....,.Thouqh therefore there is fess one way or the

other in the Act or the Requlations castinq a duty on the

cmmitt tmanner ofh ed

a nm rI d beforitand therts

effects of the decisions ofthe Committee on the examinee

co a duty is cast or,

Commi o actud icia llin this matt sitrI r

has to decide obiectivelv certain facts which mav seriouslv

ailoctthe riohts and careers of exarninees-before it canl^ko

.a nvaction in the exercisc of its nower under Rtt1

(

1

'|

w

therefore of opinion tha r rhen it exercises its

t!atwersrrnder Rule 1( 1)s actino orrst-rud icia lla an.1 th

les reuire that the otherr

na eexmtnin thi m will a

to the Dro€eedinq fore the Committee.

31 mtters of student dictlin nal

institutions can!!et be termed as quasi-iudicial. The matters of

do disciline where for non-comlia nwthttt

instructions or deviant student behaviourresultino in

inconvenience to other students etc., the edlrcatiqrlaI institution

would onlv be acting administrativelv. However, in the matter

of exDUlsion or rustication,the same is not the case. ThiS WAS

explained in Glynn v. Keele University, (1971) 2 All. ER 89. The Vice-

Chancellor of Keele University took disciplinary action against a

number of students who are found standing or sitting naked in the

University Campus by fining ten pounds and expelling them from the

hostel. The action was questioned by one student. The Court noticed

the distinction - the nature oF administrative powers and quasi-judicial

powers of an educational society tn the following manner:

The context of education societies involves a special factor which is not

present in other contexts, namely, the relation of tutor and pupil i.e.,

the society is charged with the supervision and upbringing of the pupil

nthtn

aalln

I

I

23

under tuition, be the society a university or college ol

this relationship exists it ts quite plain that on the on.

circumstances thc body or individual acting on behir

must be regarded as acting in a quasi-judicial cap I

from the society is

the obvious example. On the other hand, there exist!

ctrcumstances in whrch the body or individual is conr.,

penalties by way of domestic discipline. In these r

seems to me that the body or individual is not acting r

capacity at all but rn a magisterial capacity, i.e., in th.

lhe rights and duties vested in the society as to thrl

supervision of thc members of the society.

r school. Where

hand in certain

of the society

:ity - expulsion

: wide range of

rned to impose

rcumstances it

a q uasi-judicial

performance of

upbringing and

In theresent cas 'incioles laid

downin the aforesaid iudqments to the factsof the

present case, this Court opines that the res,l

'ondent

No,4

and respondentNo.3 did not Derform their duties in a

prooer andlawf ul manner, resItino in inrstice to thei

petitioner herern.

L2. In the present case, admittedly eve n as per the

averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, the enquiry eport of the

loth respondent had not been supplied to t re petitioner

herein and the disciplinary Authority proc€€rl 3d to impose

punishment. The Aoex Court in the iudomerl: reported in

(1993) 4 SCC 727, dated O1.1O.1993 in Manar inq Director,

ILH rabadoters. B.Ka il'and Others

and in oarticular at oara No.29 (referred to e nd extracted

above) clearlv held that when the EnouirvI )fficer Ls not

)a

the disciolinaAuthoritv, the delinouentemolovee has a

rioht toreceive a coDv ofthe enouirv officer's reDort

before the disciolinarvauthoritv arrives at its cnclusio n s

with reoardtothequilt or innocence of the emolovee with

resoect to thecharqes levelled aoainst the emolovee. This

rioht forms oart of the emolovee's rioht todefend himself

aqainst the charqes levelled aqainst him. A denial of the

enouirv officer's reoort before the disciolinarv authoritv

takes its decision on the charqes amounts to denial of a

reasonable oDDortunitv tothe emolovee to Drove

nettoner

,s

tnnocence and constitutes a breach ofthA

principles of natural iustice.

13, As Der the ADex Courtiudqment reDorted in (1993) 4

SCC 727 in oarticular oara No.29 (referred to and

extracted above), it is evident that since enquirv officer

i.e., the l0th respondent's report had not been supplied to

the petitioner herein despite sDecific request made bv the

nef itioner for thesamehencethe actionfth

resoondents is unustainable in law.

14. The an the saidument vercea rl d

that the statutorv rules needto be followed and the

li

l,

I

25

disciplinarv proceedinos should be inconf,c rmitv with the

said rules. It has further observed tharl even in the

absence of sDecific statutory rules, thr: principles of

n ustice needoefilw aiculrrlv in mattersr

involvinq determination of vital questi rns inteqrally

connected with the riqhts of the individual concerned. In

conductinq such enquirv, the authoritv_ nust have to

ascertain both facts and law, act in qood laith and fairlv

hear both sides.

15. A bare oerusal of the averments mad( at Dara Nos.6

to 9 of the affidavit filed bv the oetitinerherein in(

su DDort of oetitioner'scase clearlv indi< ates thatthe

oetitioner had been denied reasonable ooor rtunitv to Dut-

forth oetitioner'scase before theresponr lent No.4 and

resoo ndentNo.3 herein.

16. A bare oerusal of the averments marr le in the replv

affidavit filed by the petitioner at para NoEL6. L7and 28

tn resDonse to the counteraffidavit filed or r behalf of the

resDondent Nos.2 to 4 ( referrto and e>< ractedabove)

clearlv indicates that the petitioner failed t,_o Dlace anv ora!

(or documenta rvevidence.srnceth disci oli na rv

.L

f

26

Committfailed to orovide thetitioner with theee eD

relevant materialand charoes levelledaqainst the

oetitioner. Depite specific requests of thepetitioner for

furnrshinq enquirv reDort, the same was neither produced

nor suoolied to the Dettoner herein, in clear violation oft

the orincioles of natural iustice. Theoetitioner was denied

heoortu n ito cros-examtne anwitns nw

not shwnh TVf .Th h tor

was denredaIl therea sonale oDDortunities to defend

himself. The requirement of audi alteram Dartem had not

been fulfilled.

L7. A bare perusal of the averments made by the

petitioner in support of petitioner's case and also the

averments made in the reply affidavit filed in response to

the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4

clearly indicates that the petitioner had been denied

reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

18. This Court opines that the order impugned passed by

the 4th respondent, dated 15.O5.2025, admittedly as borne

on record does not andicate any reasons for arriving at the

said conclusion and it merely states that an order of

T

27

punishment had been imposed against the petitioner as

per report, dated O8.O5.2O25 submitted by tlr: disciplinary

Committee.

19. This Court opines that there is no justil cation in the

order, dated 15.05.2O25 passed by the 4t' respondent

herein nor in the order, dated O9.O5.2025 passed by the

3'd respondent whereby the order, dated 1I; O5'2O25 was

upheld against the Petitioner.

20. A bare perusal of the appeal filed by l:l re petitioner,

dated 19.O5.2O25 clearly indicates that sper: fic pleas had

been put-forth by the petitioner that the peti ioner did not

instigate or provoke any group action and h id made one

phone call and though the petitioner oral y shared his

frustrations with fellow mess diners who wt: e passing by

and was at the front of the mob, the petit oner did not

indutge in any sloganeering or shoutang. Ther: e pleas were

not properly considered. The 3'd respondent rejected the

appeal in a routine and unilateral mar ner without

independent application of mind and without providing an

opportunity of oral hearing to the petition er. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that the petiti )ner was not

r

2B

aware of the specific charges nor of the evidence gathered

against the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court opines that

orders impugned issued against the petitioner

by the 4th

and 3'd respondent are unsustainable in law, in view of

the clear observations in the judgments (referred to and

extracted above)

2L. This Court opines that the judgment

of the Apex

Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 3356, dated 16.08.2012 in

Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University Vs. CRAIG

MCLEOD(referred to and extracted above) relied upon by

the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is not applicable to the facts

of the present case in view of the simple fact that justice

shourd not onry be done, but arso manifesfly seem to be

done. fn the present case, the order impugned, dated

15.O5.2O2S passed by the 4th respondent admittedly as

borne on record does not assign any reasons whatsoever

and the appertate order, dated og.o6.2025 arso faits to

dasclose any independent reasoning. The Apex Court

judgment.

Hence, this court opines that the order

impugned vide Ref.No.rFHE /OS/2OZS/35IADMN,

dated

r1

-1

i

29

15.05.2025 passed by the respondent No., needs to be

set-a side.

22. The ApexCourt in the iudoment reDortc d in (2O1O) 9

SCC 496 in "Kranthi Associates Private Limited and

another Vs. MasooAhmed Khan andothers" at

DaraqraDh No.47bserved as under:

"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Cc L rt holds:

a. in India the judicial trend has always been t( record reasons,

even in administrative declsions, if such decisi,t rs affect anyone

prejud icia lly.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reas I rs in support of

its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant 1( serve the wider

principle oF lustice that justice must not only rs done it must

also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a vali(J restraint on any

possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and qua!i judicial or even

ad ministrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been r xercised by the

decision maker on relevant grounds and ,y disregarding

extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have vrrtually become as indispens. I le a component

of a decision making process as observing pri r:iples of natural

justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even L, administrative

bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate thc process of judicial re! ew by superlor

Cou rts.

h. The ongoing ludrcral trend in all countries c r nmitted to rule

of law and constitutional governance is in farr ur of reasoned

decisions based on relevant tacts. This is virtu. y the life blood

of judicial decision making justifying the princif | ) that reason is

the soul of justice.

i. ludicial or even quast-judiclal opinions thes€ Jays can be as

different as the judges and authorities who rt iiver them. AII

these decisions serve one common purpol,, which is to

demonstrate by reason that the relevant far 1 trs have been

objectively considered. This is important For sustaining the

Iitigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement f r- both judicial

accounta bllity and tra nspa rency.

30

;.:.

k. If a ludge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candrd enough

about his/her decision making process then it is impossibte to

know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of

precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decrsions must be cogent, clear and

succinct. A pretence of reasons or

'rubber-stamp

reasons, is not.

to be equated wrth a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of

restraint on abuse of ;udicial powers. Transparency in decision

making not only makes the .ludges and decision makers less

prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader

scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor

(1987) 100 Harward Law Review l3l-137).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from thc

broad doctrine of fairness rn declsion making, the said

requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and

was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994)

19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford,

2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein thc Court referred to Article 6 of

European Convention of Human Rrghts which requires,

"adequate and tntelligent reasons must be given for judicial

decisions".

o. In all common law lurisdictions judgments play a vital role in

setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development

of law, requirement of giving reasons l,or the decision is of the

essence and is virtually a part of "Due process,'.,,

23The Aoex Courttnthe iudqmentreDorted an (L976) 2

cc 1nesimsEn1n and Mfacturin

Co ofIndia vs.The Unionof India"at DaraoraDhNo.6

observed as under:

"6. Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the

manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the

Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them. It is

incontrovertible that the proceedings betore the Assistant Collector

arising from the notices demanding diffcrcntial duty were quasi-judicial

proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the

Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed

by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is

now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of

a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the

order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by

reasons. That has been laid down bv a long Iine of decisions of this

31

Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd. I C. 11

decided on December 17, L975) But, unfortunet

Collector did not choose to give any reasons in sLl

made by him confirming the demand for differentiel

plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collec

give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactc r

in his order with the arguments advanced by the i

representation dated December g,

1961 which we-

subsequent representation dated lune 4, 1g65. It is r

the Collector should have made an elaborate or(i

arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Co I

No. 245 of 7970,

rly, the Assistant

port of the order

duty. Th is was in

or in revision did

z, He did not deal

ppellants in their

repeated in the

rt suggested that

,r

discussing the

t of law. But the

order of the Collector could have been a litue - ore explicit and

articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of e appeilants had

been properly considered by him. If courts of law arr .o be replaced by

a administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of

cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law, t rey may have to

be so replaced, it is essential that administrativ: authorities and

tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to tlr , persons sought

to be affected by their orders and give sufficientry rear and expricit

reasons in support of the orders made by tlr m. Then alone

administrative authoritres and tribunars exercis r g quasi-judiciar

function will be able to justifv their existri rce and carry

credihilitv with the peopte bv inspirino corr ia."iE in- tt E

adiudicatorv process. The rule reouiring reasonl to be oiven in

suoport of an order is, like the principle of audi g tteramli.tE-l

a basic orinciole of natural justice which mu,!, inform ;re.;

quasi-judicial process and this rule must be I Use*Ea- in-G

proper soirit and mere pretence of comoliance raa th iii;;;ld;A

satisfv the reouirement of raw. The Gover.merl , or rndaa arso

faile4 to give any reasons in supoort of its orde i.e:ecE"q it e

revlsion aoolication. But we may oresume thaii

.t

..1..t1". th.

revisiqn application, it adopted the saml

_

-eason

which

prevailed with the Collector. The reason given Oy I e Cottecto. *as,

as already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it

,r

tuld, therefore,

have been better if the Government of India had rr ren proper and

adequate reasons dealing with the arguments advarr :d on behalf of

the appellants while rejecting the revision applicabcr. We hope and

trust that in future the customs authorities will be nore careful in

adjudicating upon the proceedings which come befor _. them and pass

properly reasoned orders, so that those who are ,r

.ected

by such

orders are assured that their case has received proper ronsideration at

the hands oF the Customs Authorities and the ,alidity of the

adjudication made by the customs Authorities can arsc re satisfactoiiiy

tested in a superior tribunar or court. In fact, it wourd :: desirabre thai

in cases arising under customs and excise laws an inc ( pendent quasi_

judicial tribunal, like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunz I or the Foreign

Exchange- Regulation Appelate eoard, is set up whir r wourd finaiiy

dispose of appears and revision apprications unier th: ;e Iaws instead

.i.l

'€r

32

of leaving the determination of such appeals and revision applications

to the

tribun

Government of India inden ual-

I would dfinitelv insoire o reaterconfidencein the

public mind."

The observationsof the Aoex Court inthe aforesaid

udmen eferredand extra abov rl

indicatesthat theorders impuoneddated09.o6.202s

Dassedbv the resDondent No.3 anddated 15.05.2025

the r ent No.4 warrant inerfence b

this Court since thev are devoid of reasons and

iustification.

24.Takinointo consideratio n: -

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The submissions put-forth by the learned senior

designated counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and learned senior designated counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

c) The impugned order of Expulsion issued by

respondent No.4 through

Ref.No.IFHE/05/2025/3slADMN, dated 1s.05.202s

against the petitioner expelling for the Semesters VII &

VIII of Academic year 2()25-26 from the

Department/Faculty/ Library/Mess/Club and permanent

1.5

33

expulsion from the Hostel (referred to and extracted

above)

d) The impugned order of the appellate Aut hority i.e., the

respondent No.3, dated O9.06.2O25 in upholding the

order of Expulsion, dated 15.05.2O25 (rr ferred to and

extracted above) issued against the petitioner by

respondent No.4.

e) The averments made by the petition€r in support of

the present writ petition at para No.3,6,7 ;r rd 9 (referred

to and extracted above) and also the averrr ents made by

the petationer in the reply affidavit filed b), the petitioner

(referred to and extracted above)

f) The averments made in the counter aff davit filed by

the respondent Nos.2 to 4 (referred to i nd extracted

above)

S) The representation made vide e -mait, dated

20.06.2025 to the respondent No.z, for SGRC

consideration, which was accepted by th I respondent

I

I

i

No.5.

34

h) The UGC Regulation s(Viii), which had not been

complied with as on date (referred to and extracted

above)

i) Prayer sought for by the petitioner an I.A.No.O4 of ZO25

in W.P,No.26O64 of 2O25.

Th servan the various Cou dment

( referred to andextracted above) andain enlistedao

below:-

1) (1993) 4 SCC727

2) MANU/ORlOL89/2OL4,

3)2016 SSC OnLine Pat 7383

4) 2OO2(2)ALD827

s) (2o10) 9 scc 496

6) (1976) 2 SCC 981

k) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.s

to 23 of the present order.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the imouoned order

Dassed bv the aooellate Authoritv, i.e., the respondent

No.3 vide Ref.No.IFHE I Pro l0204 / 2O2s, dated 09.06.2025

orderu the tmuned vide

;.i

i

t

I

l

I

35

Ref,No.IFHE/os/202st3slADM dated 15.O5.2025

(

Dassed bvthe 4th resoondentmechanacallv

is however observed that it is oI,en to the

-

s set-aside, it

r esDondents to

oroceed aqainst thepetitioner in accordar rce to law, in

conformitv with principles of natural iusti,:: bv followinq

due orocedure of law.However,lltere shalfenoorder as

to costs.

[i4iscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin; in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

S,l-M.osMAD+AfrBAlG--,/

'

tsfIifrT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE CO

To,

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUS E SURI:

,ALLI

NANDA

(For Her Ladyships Ki rusal)

1. The University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur f hah Zafar Marg' New

Delhi- 110002

2. The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education (IFHE), Hyderabad,

Donthanapally, Shankarpalli Road, Hyderabad, Telanpz ra- 501203

3. The Pro-Vice Chancellor, Appellate Authority, The CFAI Foundation for

Higher Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapa l' , Shankarpalli Road,

Hyderabad, Telangana- 501 203.

4. The Registrar (Disciplinary Authority), The ICFAI f 3undation for Higher

Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapally, Shankar alli Road, Hyderabad,

Telangana- 501203.

5. The Students Grievance Redressal Committee, Th(' ICFAI Foundation for

Higher Education (IFHE), Hyderabad, Donthanapall', Shankarpalli Road,

Hyderabad, Telangana- 501 203.

6. 1 'l LR Copies

7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law Justice and Company

Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court

Buildings, Hyderabad.

9. One CC to SRI S GOUTHAM, Advocate [OPUC]

10.One CC to SRI S.BHASKARAN, Advocate [OPUC]

11. One CC to SRI M.P. KASHYAP, SC FOR UGC [OPUC ]

12. Two CD Copies

II

Lk"

--,wa?

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3010112026

ORDER

WP.No.26064 ot 2025

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

.J

K5

CC TODAY

.

'rlE SfA

LJ 5 i,lr ! 202da

t

.:)

.?5

i.

{a\ze