- (1.) The petitioner has been dropped for two semesters i.e. I and II semesters 1990/91. The University campus and its farm were declared out of bounds for him. He was placed on conduct probation throughout his stay in the University after his re-registration in Ist semester 1991-92 if his re-registration is allowed. He was barred from seeking any employment in the University and admission for any higher degree programme in the University. This punishment of the petitioner is based on the charge sheet served on him on 30-1-91. He was charged for having indulged in the acts of indiscipline as mentioned in the said charge-sheet. These were as under:- 1. Showing disrespect to a teacher. 2. Threatening and abusing a University Staff under the influence of liquor. 3. Using Motor cycle during late night hours and forcibly entering in the house of a campus resident. 4. Showing disrespect and challenging the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and Deans, and 5. Attempting to use illegal means to obtain grade in a subject which amounts to use of unfair means.
(2.) He was required to present himself along with his natural guardian before the Disciplinary Committee in the office of the Dean Student Welfare on 8-2-1991 at 11.00 A. M. to explain his conduct. The petitioner appeared on the appointed date. He denied the charges. Thereafter, by an order dated 8-4-91 he was awarded a punishment which is contained in Annexure III to the writ petition. The punishment awarded is already referred to in the beginning of this order.
(3.) The petitioner challenges the order of punishment on the grounds that he was not given materials in support of the allegation mentioned in Annexure-I. Disciplinary Committee's finding was not given to the petitioner nor was he afforded any opportunity to make a representation against the punishment. The statements of witnesses or even its gist and copy of the complaint was not supplied and he was denied fair opportunity to defend himself. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were grave. The petitioner has denied those allegations. The show cause letter did not mention any punishment. The enquiry proceedings which were conducted at the back of the petitioner are said to be illegal, perverse, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.;