MOHD. MONISH Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court was a student of B.A. Course of the respondent university ­ Jamia Millia Islamia. On receipt of a complaint that the petitioner was harassing a girl student of the university, a show -cause notice dated 8.5.2013 was issued to the petitioner, referring to the aforesaid complaint and asking him to submit his explanation on or before 4 pm on 10.5.2013. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid show -cause notice vide his reply dated 10.5.2013, stating therein that as they were together in the class of History fromwhere he started notice of her and approached her. She, however, gave a neutral reply and, therefore, he again approached her. He denied having harassed her, teased her and threatened to kill her.

(2.) THE petitioner was given personal hearing in a meeting held of the Disciplinary Committee held on 26.7.2013. The aforesaid Committee taking a serious view of the involvement of the petitioner in the case of eve -teasing and considering the oral submissions as well as written submissions at length recommended to the Vice -Chancellor of the University to expel him from the University. The Vice -Chancellor in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Statute 31, expelled the petitioner from the university and also imposed complete ban on his entering the university. The petitioner vide his letter dated 29.8.2013, sought review of the aforesaid order whereby he was expelled from the university and was banned from entering its campus. The request was reiterated vide subsequent letter dated 30.8.2013. The university, however, has not reviewed the order passed by the Vice -Chancellor. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a decision of this Court in Akhlaque Ahmad Khan versus Jamia Millia Islamia [W.P(C) No.1687/2008, decided on 14.9.2010] relied upon the Statute 31 and 14 of the University, which, as reproduced in the aforesaid judgment read as under: