- (1.) Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the "University") through its Registrar and two others namely Vice Chancellor of the University and the Director of University Institute of Engineering and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "UIET"), are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 10.5.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 19547 of 2017 (Shweta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass the following order; "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a student who has to appear in the 6th semester examination of B.Tech Course. On 23.3.2017 she was fooled and cajoled into going out of the hostel complex by a roommate of hers with whom she had stayed for three years to go to the residence of a boy student where allegedly she was forced to consume liquor and thereafter in a state of inebriation was made to indulge in certain acts of indiscipline, which have resulted in the impugned order, by which she has been debarred from appearing in the examination of the 6th semester which is to commence from 11.5.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 23 years of age and had never before indulged in any activity which could lower the reputation of the University. He has also submitted that in fact she was innocent and that she never indulged in any act of indiscipline. Further, he has contended that even if a certain act of indiscipline occurred it was because of her being simple and innocent and has further stressed that had she been involved in the incident then she would never have complained about it. In reply, learned counsel for the University has submitted that if such acts of indiscipline are allowed to occur then it would become very difficult to impart education and conduct examinations in a disciplined manner. Such acts of indiscipline should not only be shunned but should also be condemned. Learned counsel for the University has further submitted that the punishment which had been given to her was only by way of deterrence to her as also to other students. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner as also for the University, I feel that the petitioner is a student of third year B.Tech course. Imposing a punishment of debarring the petitioner from appearing in the 6th semester examination of B.Tech course will not only make her lose a year but will also make her suffer from humiliation and indignation. That apart, the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner, could have been a lesser one and she could have been punished by imposing just a fine as it was for the first time that she was involved in such an act of indiscipline. I feel that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner of improving her ways and in such circumstances, the order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the respondent no.3, Vice-Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur shall remain in abeyance in so far as it concerns the petitioner. The petitioner shall now be permitted to appear in the 6th semester examination. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 may file his counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. The counsel for the petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit. List this petition in third week of July, 2017. Copy be issued today."
(2.) Brief background of the case leading to preferring of instant special appeal is that Shweta Singh is student of B.Tech Course Third Year in the branch of Electronics and Communication and has been residing at the Girls Hostel No. II in the engineering college situated in the University campus. Allegations came forward that petitioner respondent alongwith Akansha Rajput and other four male students namely Satyam, Gaurav, Divyanshu and Anupam during University hours went outside of the University at the residence of her classmate Satyam Sharma on 23.3.2017 between 10 AM to 5 PM whereas on the said relevant date University was open and teaching was also going on and the said students without taking permission either from the Director of the UIET or from the Warden of the hostel proceeded to the residence of Satyam Sharma. Facts have also come forward that at the residence of aforesaid Satyam Sharma all the aforesaid six students have consumed liquor and, thereafter, some unwanted, unethical and immoral incident took place at the residence of Satyam Sharma and, at the first instance on 23.4.2017 no complaint has been lodged but on the next day i.e. 24.3.2017 there has been murmuring in the University and then on 25.3.2017 petitioner respondent filed a complaint before the Discipline Committee, UIET and pursuant to the said complaint moved by the petitioner respondent, the matter was placed before the Vice-Chancellor of University, who constituted six members of Women's Grievance Redressal Cell having two male members and four female members and out of four female members, one from outside of the University. The said Cell took written statement of all the concerned students with regard to the incident and, thereafter, a conscious decision has been taken on 18.4.2017, based on the report so submitted by the Cell in question, for a punishment of debarring from appearing sixth semester examination of B.Tech. Course and not to use the hostel. Aggrieved petitioner respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 19547 of 2017 and this much is reflected that the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition and proceeded to pass the interim order. The said action of learned Single Judge according interim order has impelled the appellant respondents to be before this Court.
(3.) Sri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel for the University, has contended with vehemence that in the matter of internal discipline (campus discipline) such an interim order should not have been passed that would have the effect of disturbing the internal discipline of the University whereas such actions are taken in academic interest of the University so that the other students are deterred from undertaking any such activity which is not at all conducive to the peaceful atmosphere of the University and, as such, learned Single Judge has transgressed and overstepped, in the present case, while according final relief in the shape of interim order and thus creating a situation for brewing indiscipline in the University/UIET, in view of this, said order of learned Single Judge to the extent it accords interim order is liable to be set-aside.;