S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who has been a student of G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Nainital has appro-Ached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the office order dated 29/30-6-1993 whereby the following punishment was awarded to him : "1. Temporary Dismissal for 3 Semester i.e. II Semester, 1992-93 and I and II Semesters 1993-94, ii. Campus declared out of bounds during the above period. iii. Conduct probation throughout his stay in the University after readmission iv. Debarred i for further degree programme and job employment in the University. v. Readmission after completion of punishment period is subject to approval of Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of Dean of College/ Discipline Committee."
(2.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings against the petitioner and certain other students arose out of complaints and counter complaints pertaining to several cases of 'Maar-Peet' and 'physical assault' which took place on 24-2-1993, 12-4-1993, 15-4-1993 and 28-4-1993. The incidents were investigated by the DISCIPLINARY Committee and the concerned students including the petitioner were heard in person and afforded opportunity to defend themselves. On the basis of the material available before the DISCIPLINARY Committee, the following acts of indiscipline and misconduct emerged against the petitioner :- "i. Involvement in maar-peet and firing incident in the market as well as Subhash Bhawan on 24-2-1993. ii. Physical assault on Sri Y. K. Sharma, Id. No. 16234 common room of Vis. Bhawan on 12-4-93. iii. Alleged involvement in clash with Sri Om Vir Singh, Id. No. 17410 and Sri. Rahul Verma Id. No. 16654 near Silver Jubilee Hostel on 15-4-93. iv. Active participation in group clash and man-handling on 28-4-1993 near University Library alleged to be having Desi Kattas." Upon consideration of the report submitted to it, the Disciplinary Committee the meeting of which was held on 20-8-1993, awarded to the petitioner the punishment as aforestated Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in a just and fair manner and well in accordance with the principles of natural justice. I do not find any error in the decision, making process' and this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot supplant the decision taken by the University authorities by its own.
(3.) IT was held in the case of Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 All. E.R. 141 "The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court." (See also Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P., JT 1993 (4) SC 1), Lord Brightman observed in the above noted case of Evans : ".........Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made_____" and held that it would be an error to think".....that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." ;