VIVEK KUMAR Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR B H U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of the opposite party No. 1 dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been expelled from the Banaras Hindu University and has been debarred from pursuing any course of study or appearing at any entrance test of the University or taking any employment whatsoever in the university with immediate effect.

(2.) SUMMARY of the facts dealing the issue can be summarized. When the impugned action against the petitioner came into existence, he happened to be a student of last semester, i.e., VIIIth semester of B. Tech. Chemical Engineering. The petitioner was selected for the aforesaid B. Tech. Chemical Engineering course in the Institute of Technology in the Banaras Hindu University on his performance in the admission test conducted on all India basis. Petitioner states that he has a good academic record as in the High School and Intermediate examinations conducted by the U. P. Board, he has secured 79% and 76% marks respectively. Petitioner claims that he has passed out all the semesters regularly with good performance. It is in respect to an incident which is said to have taken place in the night of 24/25th March, 2001, in which the petitioner and one Gaurav Anand committed a misconduct with a fellow student, namely, Siddharth Sinha, on a complaint having been made by the aforesaid Sri Sinha, the disciplinary proceedings started, which has resulted into expulsion of Gaurav Anand for one year from the university and expulsion of the petitioner for all the time to come. It is this action of the respondents which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) SRI V. K. Upadhyay, learned advocate who represents the Banaras Hindu University on the basis of the facts so stated in the counter-affidavit submits before the Court that petitioner has been found to be guilty of serious misconduct and the acts of the petitioner amount to a case of severe ragging and, therefore, to prevent pollution in atmosphere of the campus and discipline among the students, to curb the future cases of ragging a deterrent punishment was required to be given, which will go as a message for others, not to commit such an act of ragging in future. SRI Upadhyay during the course of his arguments emphasised that the incident and the indecent act on the part of the petitioner amounts to ragging which is strictly prohibited, which has also been taken very seriously by the Hon'ble Apex Court and all kinds of preventive measures have been directed to be adopted including deterrent punishment and, therefore, learned counsel submits that expulsion of the petitioner from the university for all the time to come cannot be said to be arbitrary and unjustified in any manner. SRI Upadhyay has taken the Court to the decision as has been given by the Apex Court in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Government, 2001 (3) AWC 2276 (SC) : (2001) 6 SCC 577, in support of the submission that to curb the acts of ragging, it is the concern of all the educational institutions and the authorities and all kinds of preventive measures have to be taken and the punishment has to be given on its proof. SRI Upadhyay has also placed before this Court various Ordinances governing the maintenance of discipline in university hostels and delegacies as contained in Chapters 7 and 8 of the Ordinances and also para 60 of the Statute.