- (1.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr.G.K.Garg, appearing on behalf of respondent at the very outset submits that vide order dated 3-5-2012 the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner for his misconduct in terms of order dated 13-3-2012 has since been reduced and the petitioner would be allowed to attend the regular classes of IV Semester commencing from December, 2012 and to appear in the examination after completion of the Semester as per the University Rules.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment dated 13-3-2012 is disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner wherein the only serious allegation found proved in an enquiry is with regard to slapping of a co-student by the petitioner. COUNSEL submits that the petitioner was suspended during pendency of enquiry vide order dated 4-2-2012 and further punishment under order dated 13-3-2012 tantamounts to petitioner being subjected to double jeopardy. COUNSEL submits that the petitioner having already suffered suspension under order dated 4-2-2012, this court should set aside the order dated 13-3-2012 and allow the petitioner to write the examination of the IV Semester of M.S. Green Chemistry starting today i.e. 4-5-2012 as a regular student. Mr.Garg, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent University would however submit that the petitioner's argument with reference to doctrine of double jeopardy is absolutely misdirected, inasmuch as the order of suspension passed on 4-2-2012 was only an interim direction during pendency of the enquiry. He submits that the enquiry has been conducted by a retired Judicial Officer, of the RHJS cadre and the petitioner himself admitted therein his misconduct in resorting to physical violence against a co-student. He submits that no student of the University can be allowed to physically abuse a co-student and the University has zero tolerance in such matters. It has been further submitted that in any event the petitioner is short on attendance consequent to his suspension dated 4-2-2012 with reference to ordinance 3 of the Examination and Evaluation as promulgated under Section 28(1)(g) and Section 12 (12)(2)(xiv) of the Central University Act, 2009, which provide that no student shall be permitted to appear in the examination at the end of the Semester unless he has attended as a regular student and studied the course prescribed for the programme with at least minimum 75% attendance/ lectures. Counsel also submitted that owing to suspension of the petitioner under order dated 4-2-2012 neither the petitioner was allowed to nor he did appear in the mid-term examination nor was subjected to internal assessment apart from not having completed the requirement of minimum 75% attendance in the programme. In the context aforesaid counsel for the respondent submitted that the prayer of the petitioner to write the examination of the IV Semester of the course in issue was without force and should be disallowed as also should the prayer for setting aside the order of punishment dated 13-3-2012 as now modified on 3-5-2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 4-2-2012 passed by the University whereby he was suspended from attending classes in IV Semester. Nor has the petitioner challenged the finding of guilt in the enquiry against his misconduct. Consequent to the petitioner's suspension he did not write the midterm examination nor was he subjected to internal assessment. Similarly non-attendance of course owing to the suspension has entailed shortage on the minimum 75% attendance in classes which is a mandatory condition for appearing in the examination at the end of the Semester. The order of finding the petitioner guilty for misconduct has attained finality. As such the petitioner cannot be permitted to write the examination of IV Semester commencing from today i.e. May 4, 2012. Suspension was only an interim arrangement for conducting an enquiry in respect of the alleged misconduct attributed to the petitioner owing to physical violence against a co-student. The petitioner has been found guilty in the enquiry on his own admission. In my considered opinion the suspension of the petitioner was not a part of punishment and was only an interim arrangement for conducting the enquiry for the misconduct of the petitioner for slapping a co-student. Even otherwise physical abuse of a fellow student is a serious and absolutely non negotiable issue. In such circumstances the University could also visit the delinquent student with permanent rustication from the University, but the University has imposed a lesser punishment.
(3.) IN the present case the respondent University has reduced the effect of order of punishment dated 13-3-2012 under its order dated 3-5-2012 allowing the petitioner to attend regular classes of the IV Semester commencing December, 2012 and to appear in examination after completion of study of the Semester as per University Rules. IN view of the order dated 3-5-2012 the petitioner is now eligible to study in IV semester commencing December, 2012 and thereafter to appear in the examination after completion of study as against being eligible to recommence study in the IV Semester in December, 2013 under the order dated 13-3-2012. Effectively while admitting to the misconduct the challenge in this petition is to the punishment imposed for misconduct found (and admitted) being disproportionate. The law on the scope of interference with the punishment after finding of guilt in an enquiry is very clear. The punishment has to either ultra vires of the power of the authority or shocking to the conscience of the Court. No ground based on ultra vires is pleaded or argued. On the facts of the case more particularly in view of modification of the punishment order dated 13-3-2012 vide order dated 3-5-2012, I do not find the punishment imposed disproportionate to the misconduct. A place for learning and socialising for students to grow up as responsible citizen can not be allowed to degenerate as a place for goondaism as it would if physical violence is accepted and allowed as a mode of disagreement. No matter what the provocation. Counsel for the University is right in propagating a zero tolerance doctrine in such matters. I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. ;