DEEPAM ANAND SINGH Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dtd. 7/5/2024 (Annexure P-7), 21/5/2024 (Annexure P-11), 11/6/2024 (Annexure P-17), 4/7/2024 (Annexure P-22), 31/7/2024 (Annexure P-31), 31/7/2024 (Annexure P-34) with a further prayer to direct the respondents to declare the withheld result of the petitioner for the third semester which has already been declared on 8/7/2024.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner took admission in the five-year integrated LL.B. course at respondent No.1- Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, for the batch of 2023-2028. During the first trimester, the respondent-Institute, vide Annexure P-7, imposed two penalties upon the petitioner on 7/5/2024. The first penalty was expulsion from the hostel residence facility, and the second penalty was a fine of Rs.10,000.00. It was also provided that an appeal could be filed before the Chairperson, Hostel and Student Affairs, within seven days. Thereafter, a second order of punishment was passed against the petitioner by the respondent-Institute, vide Annexure P-11, on 21/5/2024, based on allegations that the petitioner was found to be indulged in 'attendance malpractice'. A monetary penalty of Rs.10,000.00 was imposed on him, with a warning that any repeat instance of breach of discipline would be dealt with strictly and may lead to termination/expulsion from the programme. Subsequently, a third order of punishment was passed against the petitioner, vide Annexure P-17, dtd. 11/6/2024, whereby the petitioner was expelled from the programme i.e., the institute itself on the basis of allegations that he used the hostel facility for three days i.e. from 16/5/2024 to 19/5/2024, despite not being permitted to do so. The expulsion was also based on the ground that he had been repeatedly involved in breach of discipline, with reference to the earlier two punishments i.e. Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-11. The petitioner filed an appeal against the expulsion order, vide Annexure P-18, dtd. 13/6/2024, explaining that although he was not permitted to use the hostel facility and was required to stay in private accommodation but he was unable to do so due to a painful burn on his left calf. The injury made it difficult for the petitioner to walk and travel to his rented accommodation, which was 5-6 kms. away from the campus. With no personal vehicle, he was compelled to stay in the hostel for three days and it was so done because of immediate threat to his safety, health issues and academic stress.

(3.) Thereafter, on 18/6/2024 vide Annexure P-19, respondent No.3 rejected the appeal of the petitioner without granting him an opportunity of personal hearing. On 19/6/2024 vide Annexure P-20, petitioner filed another appeal before the Dean of the respondent-institute providing detailed reasons as to why he was compelled to stay in the hostel for three days. Subsequently, vide Annexure P-22, the Dean of the respondent-institute conveyed to the petitioner that his appeal has been rejected and again no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. The appellate authority against the order of punishment is the Director of the respondent-Institute. The Director passed an order dtd. 31/7/2024 on the mercy appeal, vide Annexure P-34, stating that the mercy appeal of the petitioner had been decided by reducing the punishment from expulsion to repeat a year with full fee, as per Clause 7.5.3 of the student handbook, and by setting aside the expulsion order. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of punishment and the order of the appellate authority.