ASHUTOSH KUMAR Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) The relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner are, he is a Ph.D. Student in the School of International Studies, with a very good academic record. A meeting was requisitioned by some students after first seeking permission on February 09, 2016. The petitioner was not involved in the requisition of the meeting. It is averred that the respondent say that some objectionable slogans were raised at the meeting which, in any case has been condemned by the petitioner and the Students Union. On February 11, 2016 the respondent constituted what it termed as a High Level Committee to enquire into the events related to the aforesaid meeting. The HLEC summoned the petitioner to appear before it to explain its position without any indication what it was that he must defend against. The petitioner was placed under suspension. Between February 12, 2016 to February 23, 2016, the petitioner was asked by three communications to appear and explain his position and also bring evidence in support of his defence. However, during this period, the Parliament was told that an interim report had found him and others guilty and have been suspended. On February 25, 2016, the petitioner wrote to the High Level Enquiry Committee in response to the directions seeking his appearance on February 26,2016 wherein he denied organizing the alleged event or raising objectionable slogans. He informed that he had been given nothing, no charge, no material and that this is no way of conducting the enquiry. It is his case, that he wrote another letter on February 26, 2016 to the High Level Committee asking for material that was considered by the Committee to be against him. Without responding to his specific charges and material, the Proctor send a written communication to the petitioner asking him to come for seeking some clarification. The Proctors communication did not acknowledge his letter on February 25, 2016 and February 26, 2016 nor did it take note of his request for basic requirements, such as the minimum of being informed of the nature and basis of charges against him. The petitioner received a show cause notice from Proctor, wherein he was charged the following:-

(3.) On March 16, 2016, the petitioner received an incomplete and undated copy of HLEC report, which contained only eight pages and on annexures or supporting documents. It cannot be said from what was given to him, what the date of the HLEC report is and what its basis was. The only stray references to him in these few pages are that he was present when a procession moved, that having gathered there, he among others was busy organizing the event, which did not form part of the charges and that he addressed the gathering, although no finding has been made against him that he said anything objectionable at all. On March 18, 2016, he responded to the show cause notice denying the charges leveled against him. It is his case, in his reply, that completely inadequate material was given to him for defence, the lack of clarity on the conduct upon which the charges were based and the complete denial of all the material evidence. He also denied the charges leveled against him. On April 25, 2016, the petitioner received one of the impugned orders dated April 25, 2016 issued by the Chief Proctor of the University wherein he was found guilty of; (a) organizing the event at Sabarmati Ground at 4.45 pm; (b) Addressing to the Group of students in wrongfully organized event and engaging in sloganeering and; (c) being part of the procession from Sabarmati ground to Ganga Dhaba during which objectionable slogans were shouted. The order also withdraws the hostel facility for the monsoon and winter semester of 2016-17 and was also imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-.