AMITY UNIVERSITY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge dtd. 2/8/2023 by which the writ petition filed by the second respondent (student) was allowed and the order dtd. 25/2/2020 rusticating him for six months, the appellate order dtd. 16/3/2020 passed in appeal reducing the period of rustication to three months, were quashed. The appellant-University was also directed to issue a fresh mark sheet to the student treating him as a regular student and to evaluate him out of 100 marks, which had the effect of removing the 'B+' Cap and also not make any reference to the disciplinary action taken against the student in the mark sheet and delete the endorsement "reappearance in September, 2020".

(2.) The second respondent (student) was admitted to B.Tech Course (Computer Science) in the appellant-University in the academic session 2016-2020. He cleared six semesters till April, 2019. While in 7th Semester, he was suspended by order dtd. 15/11/2019 with immediate effect by appellant no.4 for act of indiscipline by indulging in marking of unauthorised and fake "ODs" (on duty) attendances. Thereafter, the University conducted disciplinary proceedings against him and several others. By order dtd. 25/2/2020, the second respondent was rusticated from the University for six months w.e.f. 15/11/2019, the date of his suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor. The appeal was disposed of by reducing the period of rustication from six months to three months. The second respondent thereafter preferred the writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgement.

(3.) The Writ Court has held that there was violation of principles of natural justice, as the student was not supplied the adverse material nor the enquiry report. He was also not served with any formal charge-sheet containing statement of charges and, therefore, the order of rustication and the appellate order were held to be illegal. The Writ Court also took into consideration the period of rustication of three months already undergone, while under suspension and taking a lenient view, with the object of reformation, concluded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. Consequently, the order of punishment was held to be arbitrary and illegal and was set aside. In consequence, further reliefs, as noted above, were also granted.