- (1.) There was a scuffle on 28-4-1990 in the cinema hall(Hanger) of the Roorke University (hereinafter referred to as the University) between the petitioner, a of 2nd year B.E. (Civil) of the University on the one hand and Salil Yadav and Brij Pal Singh on the other, which resulted in injuries to both student the sides. Both the sides submitted reports of the incident to the University authorities. On 30-4-1990 the Vice-Chancellor constituted an inquiry committee to inquire into the incident and pending decision of the inquiry petitioner was suspended from attending classes with immediate effect. The Vice-Chancellor however, by his order dt. 2-5-1990, passed on the representation of the petitioner's father, allowed the petitioner to appear in the spring semister examination, 1989-90 pending decision of the inquiry committee with the observation that the petitioner is to appear before the inquiry committee as and when called without the pretext of being busy in the preparation of the examination. The examination of the petitioner commenced from 5/7-5-1990 and continued up to 25-5-1990. There is a dispute between the parties about the date on which the examination commenced inasmuch as the petitioner claims that the examination commenced on 5-5-1990, whereas the case of the University is that the examination commenced from 7-5-1990.
(2.) Statement of the petitioner was recorded by the inquiry committee on 2/ 3-5-1990 and by letter dt. 4-5-1990 the petitioner was directed to appear before the inquiry committee on 5-5-1990 at 4.15 p.m. and the petitioner in compliance thereof appeared before the inquiry committee on 5-5-1990 at the time given when he was asked to reply certain charges which he did obviously by denying his guilt. Case of the petitioner is that on 5-5-1990 lie appeared before the inquiry committee after leaving the examination, which was to continue up to 5 p.m. Thereafter on 14-5-1990 a show cause notice containing the following two charges (i) you had abused Salil Yadav and Brij Pal Singh and asked them in insulting manner to stand aside during the film show in the S.W.P. Hanger and (ii) you possessed a knife with you which you used in wounding Brij Pal Singh outside the S.W.P. Hanger, was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not be rusticated from the University for the period of one academic year 1990-91 and he be placed on probation for the remaining period of stay in the University after he rejoins in July, 1991. Along with this show cause notice no material including the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly by a letter dt. 17-5-1990 requested the respondents to supply him copy of the inquiry report and such other evidence and material including the statements of witnesses, which might have been relied upon against him. Registrar of the University by his letter dt. 19-5-1990 informed the petitioner that the inquiry committee after due deliberation has submitted the report and at this stage providing the statements of witnesses does not arise. However, the petitioner was permitted to submit his reply by 30-5-1990 and to see the inquiry report in the office on any day before 30-5-1990 petitioner by his letter dt. 26-5-1990 complained to the Registrar of the University that after giving advance information, he along with his father on 25-5-1990 waited in the office up to 4.30 p.m. for inspecting the report but nothing was made available to him and as such, requested him to either furnish him the copies or permit the inspection. Petitioner's father also by his letter dt. 28-5-1990 made identical complaint to the Vice-Chancellor. However, neither the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor was he allowed its inspection. On 30-5-1990, which was the last date for submitting the reply to show cause, petitioner gave his reply. The Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order dt. 25-6-1990, whereby the petitioner was rusticated for a period of one academic year 1990-91 with immediate effect and after one year he has been permitted to join during 1991-92 (in July, 1991) with a direction that his conduct will be on probation for the entire future stay at the campus of the University. Against this order the petitioner had made a representation to the Chancellor and had also made a prayer for interim relief. Petitioner's representation has been rejected on the ground that against the order of the Vice-Chancellor of Roorkee University, the Chancellor has no power to interfere. A true copy of the letter communicating the order of the Chancellor has been filed as Annexure VII to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the grounds (i) that inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Vice-Chancellor has also passed the impugned order in disregard to the aforesaid principles, and (ii) that the order of punishment against the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and has been passed on account of extraneous consideration. Learned counsel for the University has justified the inquiry and the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor and in this connection has placed before me counter-affidavit and documents annexed thereto.;