# Adil Khan v. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3297 of 2020
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adil-khan-v-v-c-a-m-u-aligarh-ors-49605
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Law
-The
Aligarh
Muslim
University Act, 1921 - Section 13(6) - The
Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment)
Act, 1981 - Section 36 (B) , Aligarh Muslim
University
Students
Conduct
and
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
185
Discipline Rules, 1985 - Part VII Rule 9 -
no penalty under Rule 7(x) to 7(xiv) shall
be imposed without giving the student a
reasonable opportunity of hearing - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 427, 323 and 504 - any decision,
whether administrative or quasi-judicial,
which prejudicially affects any person and
is appealable has to be supported by
explicit
and
clear
reasons
disclosing
proper application of mind and that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and
by
disregarding
extraneous
considerations. (Para - 40)

Petitioner expelled from University for a period
of five academic sessions - indulged in acts of
indiscipline and misconduct - petition pending
since 2020 - Order passed without giving any
opportunity of hearing - without giving any
opportunity to represent against findings and
proposal of Disciplinary Committee - order does
not record reasons for accepting findings and
recommendations
of
Disciplinary
Committee.(Para - 41, 44)

HELD:-The Vice-Chancellor's approval of the
Disciplinary Committee's report and its proposed
punishment were in violation of natural justice
and Rules, 1985. The order and resolution
passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Executive
Council were quashed, allowing petitioner to
attend
classes
and
appear
in
examinations.(Para - 40,43,45)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,983 of 78,602. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._

184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been set up by respondent no.2 that he was
not employed gainfully anywhere which
fact though has been denied in the
objection by the UPSRTC, none of its
witnesses before the Labour Court have
denied the statement of respondent no.2
before Labour Court that he was not
gainfully employed and was not drawing
any wage which he was getting before the
termination. The UPSRTC did not lead any
evidence to demonstrate that respondent
no.2 was gainfully employed and was
getting the same wages as he was getting
before the termination.

42. It is settled in law that Court should
endeavor to do substantial justice. This court
has ample power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to do substantial justice,
and in doing so, it can supplement the reason
in support of a finding of a subordinate court
if it finds that there is enough material on
record that justifies the finding of the
subordinate court or tribunal though no
reason has been given by the subordinate
court or the tribunal ins support of said
finding.

43. In the instant case as there was
ample material on record that proved that
respondent no.2 was not gainfully employed
after his termination, therefore, this Court is
not inclined to remand the matter on this
technical ground before the Labour Court that
no reason was assigned by the Labour Court
before awarding back wages.

44. In such view of the fact, this Court
finds that as it is established on record by
respondent no.2 that he was not gainfully
employed after his termination, the Labour
Court has rightly given full back wages.

45. Thus, the judgment of Apex Court
in
the
case
of
Management
of
Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.
(supra)
&
Hindustan
Motors
Ltd.
(supra) on which reliance has been placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the point that since the tribunal has not
given any reason while awarding back
wages vitiates the award are not applicable
in the facts of the present case as in those
cases, it seems that there was material on
record
which
established
that
the
employees were gainfully employed after
termination.

46. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the petition lacks merit. It is accordingly
dismissed and the award of the labour
court is affirmed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 3297 of 2020

Adil Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, Sri Jitendra Kumar,
Sri Mohd Zubair, Nasir Adil, Sri Prashant
Rai, Sri Rakesh Pandey, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh

(A)
Civil
Law
-The
Aligarh
Muslim
University Act, 1921 - Section 13(6) - The
Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment)
Act, 1981 - Section 36 (B) , Aligarh Muslim
University
Students
Conduct
and
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
185
Discipline Rules, 1985 - Part VII Rule 9 -
no penalty under Rule 7(x) to 7(xiv) shall
be imposed without giving the student a
reasonable opportunity of hearing - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 427, 323 and 504 - any decision,
whether administrative or quasi-judicial,
which prejudicially affects any person and
is appealable has to be supported by
explicit
and
clear
reasons
disclosing
proper application of mind and that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and
by
disregarding
extraneous
considerations. (Para - 40)

Petitioner expelled from University for a period
of five academic sessions - indulged in acts of
indiscipline and misconduct - petition pending
since 2020 - Order passed without giving any
opportunity of hearing - without giving any
opportunity to represent against findings and
proposal of Disciplinary Committee - order does
not record reasons for accepting findings and
recommendations
of
Disciplinary
Committee.(Para - 41, 44)

HELD:-The Vice-Chancellor's approval of the
Disciplinary Committee's report and its proposed
punishment were in violation of natural justice
and Rules, 1985. The order and resolution
passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Executive
Council were quashed, allowing petitioner to
attend
classes
and
appear
in
examinations.(Para - 40,43,45)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Syed Ehteshamul Haq Vs A.M.U., Aligarh &
ors. , 2009 (5) ADJ 444

2. Ajay Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ - C No.
32955 of 2019

3. St. B.O.P. & ors. Vs S.K. Sharma , 1996 (3)
SCC 364

4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Ashok Kumar & ors. , 2005
(8) SCC 760

5. K.D. Sharma Vs S.A.I.L. , 2008 (12) SCC 48
6. V.C. Guru Ghasi Das University Vs Craig
Macleod , 2012 (11) SCC 27

7. Chairman, L.I.C. Vs A. Masilamani , 2013 (6)
SCC 530

8. Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & anr. Vs
Rajendra Singh , 2013 (12) SCC 372

9. St. of U.P. Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh & ors. ,
(2020) SCC OnLine SC 84

10. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Amar Singh , 2007 (12)
SCC 621

11. Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs
Kailash Chandra Ahuja , 2008 (9) SCC 31

12. The Inspector of Panchayats & District
Collector, Salem Vs S. Arichandran & ors.
Chairman

13. J & K St. Board of Edu. Vs Feyaz Ahmed
Malik & ors. , 2000 (3) SCC 59

14. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I. , 1995 (6) SCC 749

15. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Girja
Shankar Pant & ors. , 2001 (1) SCC 182

16. I.C.A.I. Vs L.K. Ratna & ors. , 1986 (4) SCC 537

17. M.D., ECIL, Hyderabad & ors. Vs B.
Karunakar & ors. , 1993 (4) SCC 727

18. M/s. Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs U.O.I. , 1969
(3) SCC 868

19. Messrs. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. , 1970 (1) SCC 764

20. The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing
Co. of India Ltd. Vs The U.O.I. & Anr. , 1976 (2)
SCC 981

21. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Masood
Ahmed Khan & ors. , 2010 (9) SCC 496

22. Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors. ,
2010 (13) SCC 427

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. A student of B.A.LL.B. in the
Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter
referred to as, ''University') has approached
this Court pleading that he has not been
treated fairly by the University while
passing an order expelling him from the
rolls of the University for a duration of five
academic sessions on the charge that he had
indulged in acts of indiscipline and
misconduct as defined in AMU Students'
Conduct and Discipline Rules, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as, ''Rules, 1985').
The petitioner pleads violation of the
principles
of
natural
justice
in
the
disciplinary proceedings.

2. The facts of the case are that there
were differences between two groups of
students on the issue of inviting a political
leader in the University Campus, as a result
of which violent activities disrupting the
academic atmosphere in the University
took place on the Campus on 12.2.2019.
The
petitioner
is
alleged
to
have
participated in the violence. By order dated
13.2.2019, the Proctor of the University
suspended the petitioner and three other
students including one Farhan Zubairi. The
order dated 13.2.2019 notes that one
Manish Kumar had filed a complaint to the
Proctor stating that two students of the
University had abused and physically
assaulted him and blamed the petitioner
and Farhan Zubairi for the chaos in the
campus. The order dated 13.2.2019 also
prohibited the petitioner from entering the
University Campus. On 14.2.2019, two
First Information Reports were registered
in relation to incident dated 12.2.2019.
F.I.R. No. 61 of 2019 was registered at the
instance of one Azim Akhtar, an employee
of the University, under Sections 147, 323
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code alleging
that the accused named in the F.I.R. along
with some unknown persons and political
leaders had created disturbances at the
administrative building of the University.
The
other
First
Information
Report
numbered as F.I.R. No. 62 of 2019 was
registered at the instance of one Dr. Nishit
Sharma under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307
and 427 of Indian Penal Code alleging that
on 12.2.2019, the accused named in the
F.I.R. along with certain unknown persons
had physically assaulted the informant and
students of the University and had also
fired at the vehicle of the informant and
had set on fire other vehicles. The
petitioner was not named as an accused in
either of the F.I.R. A charge-sheet dated
13.7.2019 has been filed in F.I.R. No. 62 of
2019. The petitioner has not been shown as
an accused in the charge-sheet though
Farhan Zubairi has been noted as an
accused in the aforesaid charge-sheet.

3. On 28.2.2019, one Mazhar
Siddiqui, an employee of the University,
lodged
a
First
Information
Report
numbered as F.I.R. No. 0089 of 2019
against the petitioner and one Nabil under
Sections 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code
alleging that on 28.2.2019, the petitioner
along with the co-accused came in the
office of the informant and the co-accused
fired at the informant by a country-made
pistol. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that
the petitioner abused the informant and also
instigated the co-accused Nabil to fire at
the informant. It has been further stated in
the
F.I.R.
that
Nabil
Ahmed
was
apprehended by the informant but the
petitioner managed to escape from the spot
with the fire-arm. A charge-sheet has been
filed against the petitioner in the aforesaid
case. The trial in the said criminal case is
pending before the concerned court. It has
been stated by the petitioner that the
charge-sheet filed in F.I.R. No. 0089 of
2019 has been challenged before this Court
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
187
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pending before
this Court are not relevant for the present
writ petition and, therefore, the details of
the said case are not being narrated in the
present judgment.

4. An inquiry report dated 5.3.2019
was submitted by the Proctorial Board of
the University stating that, on 12.2.2019,
the petitioner had manhandled and abused
the university security personnels and
members of the Proctorial Team as well as
the district officials and had also instigated
the students at the administrative block.
The report dated 5.3.2019 also holds other
students, namely, Imran Khan, Abdul
Mabood, Manish Kumar, Pavan Jadon,
Aman Sharma, Ajay Singh and Farhan
Zubairi responsible for the incidents of
12.2.2019.
Subsequently,
disciplinary
proceedings were instituted against the
petitioner
and
the
other
students
mentioned above and the matter was
referred to the Disciplinary Committee for
further inquiry.

5. The Disciplinary Committee served
a charge-sheet on the petitioner. Charge
No. 1 was that the petitioner, along with
Farhan Zubairi, had assaulted Ajay Singh,
Manish Kumar, Pavan Jadon, Aman
Sharma and other students and had also
created
chaos
at
the
University
administrative
building
turning
the
situation violent which disrupted the
academic environment of the University.
The other charge against the petitioner was
that he, while still under suspension and
campus banned, went to the Department of
Computer Science Building on 28.2.2019
and was involved in criminal activities for
which F.I.R. No. 0089 of 2019 under
Sections 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code
had been registered against him.

6. The petitioner submitted his reply
dated 20.3.2019 in which he denied the
charge regarding his involvement in the
incidents of 12.2.2019 and 28.2.2019. In
his reply, the petitioner explained his
presence at the Administrative building on
12.2.2019 stating that he had gone there to
enquire about his application filed under
the Right to Information Act. In his reply,
the petitioner stated that there was a
conspiracy against him and his family at
the instance of one Khillan Sherwani, a
contractor with the University, against
whom complaints had been made by the
father of the petitioner and other teachers
residing in the University campus. In his
reply, the petitioner demanded the copy of
the
complaint
on
which
disciplinary
proceedings were instituted against him and
also video footages and other evidence in
support of the charges levelled against him.

7. The documents filed by the
University show that because of his illness,
the petitioner did not appear before the
Disciplinary Committee which submitted
its recommendations proposing that Manish
Kumar, Aman Sharma, Pavan Jadon, Abdul
Mabood, Irshad Khan, Basim Hilal and
Farhan Zubairi be fined Rs.2,000/- and be
issued a strict warning to be more careful in
future and Ajay Singh as well as the
petitioner be expelled from the rolls of the
University for five academic sessions.
However, the Vice-Chancellor remitted
back the matter of the petitioner to the
Disciplinary Committee for further inquiry
because the initial recommendations were
made by the Disciplinary Committee
without hearing the petitioner.

8.

The
petitioner
subsequently
appeared
before
the
Disciplinary
Committee and made his oral submissions
denying the charges levelled against him.
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The minutes of the Disciplinary Committee
show that the petitioner pleaded to be
treated leniently and at par with Farhan
Zubairi.
The
Disciplinary
Committee
submitted its report holding that the
petitioner was actively involved in the
incident of 12.2.2019. In its report, the
Disciplinary Committee further recorded
that the petitioner disobeyed the order
dated 13.2.2019 which had prohibited him
from entering the University Campus and
was also involved in the incident that
happened on 28.2.2019. On the aforesaid
findings,
the
Disciplinary
Committee,
being of the view that any further
condonation of the extremely violent and
deviant behaviour of the petitioner would
put to severe risk the life and liberty of
other students and staff of the University,
submitted its findings proposing that the
petitioner be expelled from the rolls of the
University for a duration of five academic
sessions commencing from Session 201819 and be debarred from further studies or
admission or re-admission in the University
for the duration of the aforesaid period and
the University as well as Institutions
maintained by it be placed out of bound for
the petitioner for the period he remains
expelled from the University.

9. The proposal of the Disciplinary
Committee were approved by the ViceChancellor vide his order dated 2.9.2019. The
documents produced by the University
disclose that the Vice-Chancellor had merely
noted his approval of the proposals submitted
by
the
Disciplinary
Committee.
After
approval by the Vice-Chancellor, an order
dated 4.9.2019 was issued by the Proctor of
the University informing the petitioner about
the punishments imposed on him.

10. The petitioner filed an application
dated 15.9.2019 before the Proctor seeking
certain documents especially the inquiry
report
dated
5.3.2019,
copy
of
the
complaints made to the Proctor regarding
the
incidents
dated
12.2.2019
and
28.2.2019, the video recording and CCTV
footages of the incident of 12.2.2019 and
also a copy of the report submitted by the
Disciplinary Committee. It has been stated
in the petition, that the aforesaid documents
were required to file an appeal against the
orders dated 2.9.2019 and 4.9.2019 but the
documents were neither given nor shown to
the petitioner.

11. The orders dated 2.9.2019 and
4.9.2019 were challenged by the petitioner
in an appeal filed before the Executive
Council under Section 36(B) of the Aligarh
Muslim University (Amendment) Act,
1981. In his appeal, the petitioner pleaded
that the necessary documents to enable him
to defend himself were not given to him
and he had been wrongly held to be
involved in the incidents of 12.2.2019 and
28.2.2019. In his appeal before the
Executive Council, the petitioner again
requested that he be treated in the same
manner as other students, e.g., Farhan
Zubairi,
implying
that
in
case,
the
petitioner was found involved in any act of
indiscipline, he may be treated leniently as
had been done
with
other
students
including Farhan Zubairi.

12. The Executive Council vide its
resolution dated 14.10.2019 rejected the
appeal of the petitioner. The resolution
dated 14.10.2019 was communicated to the
petitioner by the Proctor of the University
vide his letter dated 31.12.2019. The orders
dated 4.9.2019 and 31.12.2019 have been
challenged in the present writ petition.

13. Before proceeding further, it
would be relevant to note that no prayer has
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
189
been made in the petition to quash the order
dated 2.9.2019 passed by the ViceChancellor
and
the
resolution
dated
14.10.2019
passed
by
the
Executive
Council. However, considering that the
order dated 2.9.2019 has been filed by the
University and is part of the records of the
present case and the resolution dated
14.10.2019
passed
by
the
Executive
Council has been in-verbatim incorporated
in the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the
Proctor and the communications dated
4.9.2019
and
31.12.2019
are
only
intimations to the petitioner of the order
dated 2.9.2019 and the resolution dated
14.10.2019, the Court heard the counsel for
the parties on the merits of the order dated
2.9.2019
and
the
resolution
dated
14.10.2019.

14. It was argued by the counsel for
the
petitioner
that
despite
repeated
applications and representations made by
the petitioner to the University, the report
of the preliminary inquiry, the complaints
on which disciplinary action was instituted
against the petitioner, the video footage of
the incident as well as the statement of any
student or official of the University or any
other person and any other evidence
showing participation of the petitioner in
the incidents of 12.2.2019 was not given to
the petitioner during the disciplinary
proceedings. It was argued that in its report,
the
Disciplinary
Committee
has
not
referred to any statement of any witness
having deposed against the petitioner but
refers only to the CCTV footage which
only shows the presence of the petitioner at
the place of incident on 12.2.2019 and does
not show participation of the petitioner in
any violent activity that took place on
12.2.2019. It was argued that the petitioner
was not named in the first information
report or as an accused in the charge-sheet
filed by the police in relation to the events
of 12.2.2019 but many students who have
been treated leniently by the University and
have been given lighter punishments were
named in the two F.I.R. registered in
relation to the events of 12.2.2019 and have
also been named as accused in the chargesheets filed in the aforesaid cases. It was
argued that the aforesaid fact was not
considered either by the Disciplinary
Committee or by the Vice-Chancellor and
the Executive Council while deciding
against the petitioner. It was further argued
that the petitioner was not involved in the
events of 28.2.2019 and the said charge has
been held to be proved against the
petitioner only on the ground that a chargesheet had been served on the petitioner in
the criminal case registered in relation to
the incident of 28.2.2019. It was argued
that the findings regarding the incident
dated 28.2.2019 has been recorded without
taking the statement of the informant and
without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to cross-examine the informant.
It was argued that the opinion of the
Disciplinary Committee that the petitioner
is a habitual offender is based on the
findings of the Disciplinary Committee that
the petitioner was involved in the incidents
of 12.2.2019 which, for reasons stated
above, is contrary to law. It was further
argued that under Part VII Rule 9 of the
Rules, 1985, the petitioner was entitled to
an opportunity of hearing by the ViceChancellor
before
the
report
and
recommendations
of
the
Disciplinary
Committee was approved by the ViceChancellor but the order dated 2.9.2019
was passed by the Vice-Chancellor without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner
was not provided the report of the
Disciplinary Committee and was not given
any opportunity to make any representation
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the Vice-Chancellor against the report of
the Disciplinary Committee. It was further
argued that the order of the ViceChancellor reflects a total non-application
of mind and is a non-speaking order
because the order gives no reasons for
approving the proposals of the Disciplinary
Committee. It was further argued that in
light of the fact that lighter punishment had
been awarded to other students found guilty
of involvement in the events of 12.2.2019,
the petitioner has been treated unfairly by
being expelled from the University for five
academic sessions and the punishment
awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate
to the charges levelled against him. It was
further argued that the resolution dated
14.10.2019 passed by the Executive Council
rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner
also shows a total non-application of mind by
the members of the Executive Council. It was
further argued that the Vice-Chancellor had
participated in the meeting of the Executive
Council and, therefore, the decision of the
Executive Council rejecting the appeal of the
petitioner is vitiated due to bias. It was argued
that for the aforesaid reasons, principles of
natural justice were violated in the entire
disciplinary proceedings held against the
petitioner and the impugned order passed by
the Vice-Chancellor as well as the resolution
of the Executive Council have been passed
wihout following the principles of natural
justice and are liable to be quashed. In
support of his arguments, the counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the judgments of this
Court reported in Syed Ehteshamul Haq vs.
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh & Ors.
2009 (5) ADJ 444 and the judgment and
order dated 2.12.2019 passed by this Court in
Writ - C No. 32955 of 2019 (Ajay Singh vs.
Union of India & Ors.).

15. Rebutting the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for
the respondent University has argued that
the petitioner was given ample opportunity
of hearing by the Disciplinary Committee.
It was argued that before proposing the
punishment awarded to he petitioner, the
Disciplinary Committee had considered the
reply of the petitioner and the evidence on
record. It was argued that the involvement
of the petitioner in the incidents of
12.2.2019 was proved by the CCTV
footage. It was also argued that the
incidents of 28.2.2019 itself shows that the
petitioner had violated the order dated
13.2.2019 wherein he was asked not to
enter the University premises and the
incident shows the indisciplined nature of
the petitioner. It was argued that the
petitioner had been treated fairly by the
Vice-Chancellor which would be evident
from
the
fact
that
the
initial
recommendations
of
the
Disciplinary
Committee were remitted back to the
Disciplinary Committee by the ViceChancellor for giving one more opportunity
to the petitioner to defend himself. It was
argued
that
there
was
substantial
compliance of the principles of natural
justice before passing the impugned orders
and no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner in case any aspect of natural
justice has not been followed in the
process. It was argued that the case of the
petitioner is different from other students
because the petitioner was a repeatoffender and for the same reason, the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is not
disproportionate or unreasonable so as to
occasion interference by this Court. It was
further argued that the present petition
relates to disciplinary proceedings and
administration of the internal affairs of the
University and, therefore, the court may not
interfere
in
the
present
proceedings
especially in light of the fact that the
petitioner
was
involved
in
criminal
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
191
activities. It was argued, in the alternative,
that in case, the court finds the impugned
orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and
the Executive Council to be bad in law due
to violation of the principles of natural
justice, it would be appropriate that the
matter be remanded back to the ViceChancellor or the Executive Council, as the
case may be, for appropriate decision in
accordance with law but the petitioner may
not be reinstated as a student in the
University. It was argued that for all the
aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed. In
support of his arguments, the counsel for
the respondent has relied on the judgments
reported in State Bank of Patiala & Ors.
vs. S.K. Sharma 1996 (3) SCC 364; Union
of India & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
2005 (8) SCC 760; K.D. Sharma vs SAIL
2008 (12) SCC 481; V.C. Guru Ghasi Das
University vs. Craig Macleod 2012 (11)
SCC
275;
Chairman,
LIC
vs.
A.
Masilamani 2013 (6) SCC 530; Lucknow
Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs.
Rajendra Singh 2013 (12) SCC 372; State
of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.
(2020) SCC OnLine SC 847; Union of
India & Ors. Amar Singh 2007 (12) SCC
621; Haryana Financial Corporation &
Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja 2008 (9)
SCC 31 and the judgment and order dated
23.9.2022 passed in The Inspector of
Panchayats & District Collector, Salem vs.
S. Arichandran & Ors.

16. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to note that in its
counter affidavit, the University had raised
a preliminary objection that against the
decision of the Executive Council, the
petitioner had a statutory remedy under
Section 13(6) of the Aligarh Muslim
University Act, 1921 before the Visitor of
the University but during the arguments,
the counsel for the respondent - University
did not press the said objections in light of
the fact that affidavits in the case had
already been exchanged between the parties
and the matter was pending before this
Court since 2020.

17. I have considered the rival
submissions of the counsel for the parties.

18. In V.C. Guru Ghasi Das
University (supra), the Supreme Court
observed that maintenance of discipline in
the University was important for a
conducive academic environment, that the
larger interests of the academic community
are more central than the individual
interests of a student and the courts should
be most reluctant to interfere in matters of
discipline or in administration of the
internal affairs of a University. However,
the Supreme Court in Chairman, J & K
State Board of Education vs. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik and Ors. 2000 (3) SCC 59,
after observing that in matters concerning
campus discipline, the duty is primarily
vested in the authorities in-charge of the
institutions and the court should not
substitute their own views in place of the
authorities concerned, held that the courts
have the power to intervene to correct any
error in complying with the provisions of
the Rules, Regulations or Notifications and
to remedy any manifest injustice being
perpetrated on the candidates. Earlier, the
Supreme
Court
had
held
in
B.C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India 1995 (6)
SCC 749 that the courts are concerned with
the question as to whether an inquiry on
charges of misconduct against a public
servant had been held in accordance with
the principles of natural justice and whether
the concerned individual had received fair
treatment. The Supreme Court held that the
courts would interfere where the inquiry
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was held in a manner inconsistent with the
principles of natural justice, or was held in
violation of statutory rules or where the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary
authority was based on no evidence. The
Supreme Court further observed that the
disciplinary authority was the sole judge of
facts in disciplinary matters but the
appellate authority had co-extensive power
to re-appreciate evidence or nature of
punishment. Paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of
the judgment containing the observations of
the Supreme Court are reproduced below : -

"12. Judicial review is not an
appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges
of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court
/
Tribunal
is
concerned
to
determine whether the inquiry was held by
a competent officer or whether rules of
natural justice are complied with. Whether
the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence, the authority entrusted with
the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of
fact or conclusion. But that finding must
be based on some evidence. Neither the
technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof
of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority
accepts
that
evidence
and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court / Tribunal in its power
of judicial review does not act as appellate
authority to reappreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings
on the evidence. The Court / Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the
proceedings against the delinquent officer
in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory
rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached
by the disciplinary authority is based on
no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached, the Court / Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the finding,
and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is
presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the
evidence or the nature of punishment. In a
disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of
legal evidence and findings on that
evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of
evidence or reliability of evidence cannot
be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court / Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C.
Goel, this Court held at page 728 that if the
conclusion, upon consideration of the
evidence, reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of the record or based on
no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued."

 (emphasis added)

19. The observations of the Supreme
Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) were
made in a case relating to disciplinary
inquiry against civil servants but the
observations regarding powers of the court
to interfere in disciplinary proceedings, the
requirement to follow the principles of
natural justice in disciplinary inquiries and
that the findings of the disciplinary bodies
should be supported by some evidence,
applies to all disciplinary proceedings
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
193
including
disciplinary
proceedings
in
educational institutions, especially where
the allegations against the student are
serious and strict and extreme punishment
is awarded to the student as the allegations
and punishments could adversely affect the
career opportunities of the student. In
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs.
Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. 2001 (1) SCC
182, the Supreme Court observed in
Paragraph 20 that ''it was a fundamental
requirement of law that the doctrine of
natural justice be complied with and the
same has, as a matter of fact, turned out to
be an integral part of administrative
jurisprudence of this country.' At this stage,
it would be apt to refer to the observations
of the Supreme Court in Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K.
Ratna & Ors. 1986 (4) SCC 537 made
while considering whether a member of
Institute of Chartered Accountants charged
of misconduct had a right to be heard by
the Council of the Institute against the
findings of the Disciplinary Committee,
which was a standing committee of the
Council. The Supreme Court in Paragraph
14 of the judgment observed that ''it is the
substance of the matter, the character of
the
allegations,
the
far-reaching
consequences of a finding against the
member, the vesting of responsibility in the
governing body itself, all these and kindred
considerations enter into the decision of the
question whether the law implies a hearing
...'

20. The allegations against the
petitioner are serious. The punishment
awarded to him is severe and has farreaching consequences. The punishment
not only deprives the petitioner of his
educational opportunities and adversely
affects his career but also casts a stigma
obstructing his future career. The nature of
allegations against the petitioner, the strict
and extreme punishment awarded to him
and the observations of the Supreme Court
referred above persuade the court to reject
the plea of the University that the court
should decline to exercise its power of
judicial review because the matter relates to
discipline and administration of internal
affairs of the University. The punishment
given to the petitioner necessitates an
examination by this Court, in exercise of its
powers under Article 226, as to whether the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
petitioner were held in a manner consistent
with the principles of natural justice and
whether the impugned orders passed by the
Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council
comply
with
the
relevant
statutory
provisions and with the general rules of
administrative law.

21. At this stage, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the statutory
provisions relating to discipline in the
University and the powers of different
authorities / officers of the University to
take action against students in cases of
indiscipline. Statute 35 of the Statutes of
the University relates to maintenance of
discipline
amongst
students
of
the
University. The relevant parts of Statute 35
are reproduced below : -

35. Maintenance of discipline
among students of the University -

(1)
All
powers
relating
to
discipline and disciplinary action in
relation to students shall vest in the ViceChancellor.

(2) The Vice-Chancellor may
delegate all or any of his powers as he
deems proper to the Proctor and such other
officers as he may specify in this behalf.

(3) Without prejudice to the
generality of his powers relating to the
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance of discipline and taking such
action in the interest of maintaining
discipline as may seem to him appropriate,
the Vice-Chancellor may, in the exercise of
his powers, by order, direct that any
student or students be expelled, or
rusticated, for a specified period, or be not
admitted to a course or courses of Study in
a College, Department or Institution of the
University for a stated period, or be
punished with fine for an amount to be
specified in the order, or debarred from
taking
a
University
or
College
or
Departmental
Examination
or
Examinations for one or more years, or
that the results of the student or students
concerned
in
the
Examination
or
Examinations in which he or they have
appeared be cancelled.

(4) to (6) xxx

22. The students of the University are
governed by Aligarh Muslim University
Students Conduct and Discipline Rules,
1985 (Approved by the Academic Council
in its meeting held on 6.10.1985)

Part - I
General

(1) to (3) xxx
Part - II
Indiscipline and Misconduct
4. Acts of Indiscipline and Misconduct

Any
act
of
misconduct
committed by a student inside or outside
the campus shall be an act of violation of
discipline of the University. Without
prejudice
to
the
generality
of
the
foregoing provision, violations of the
discipline shall include:

(i)
Disruption
of
teaching,
student
examination,
research
or
administrative work, curricular or extracurricular activity or residential life of
the members of the University, including
any attempt to prevent any member of the
University or its staff from carrying on
his or her work; and any act reasonably
likely to cause such disruption.

(ii)
Damaging
or
defacing
University property or the property of
members of the University or any other
property inside or outside the University
campus.

(iii) Engaging in any attempt at
wrongful confinement of teachers, offices,
employees and students of the University
or camping inside or creating nuisance
inside the boundaries of houses of
teachers, officers and other members of
the University.

(iv)
Use
of
abusive
and
derogatory
slogans
or
intimidatory
language or incitement of hatred and
violence or any act calculated to further
the same.

(v) to (vi) ...

(vii)
An
assault
upon,
or
intimidation of, or insulting behaviour
towards a teacher, officer, employee or
student or any other person.

(viii) to (xxvii) ...

(xxviii) Any other act which may
be considered by the Vice-Chancellor or
the Discipline Committee to be an act of
violation of discipline.
Part - III
Officers authorized to take disciplinary
action

5. Without prejudice to the
powers
of
the
Vice-Chancellor
as
specified under Statutes 35(1), (2), (3) of
the Statutes, the following persons are
authorized to take disciplinary action by
way of imposing penalties as specified in
part IV of these Regulations;

1. Deans of the Faculties /
Dean, Students' Welfare

2. Principals of the Colleges /
Institutions
1 All. Adil Khan Vs. V.C., A.M.U., Aligarh & Ors.
195

3. Chairmen of the Departments
of Studies

4. Proctor

5.
Librarian,
Maulana
Azad
Library

6. Provosts of Halls of Residence
and N.R.S.C.

7. Secretary, University Games
Committee

8. Any other person employed by
the University and authorized by the ViceChancellor for the purpose.

6. (i) Any penalty enumerated in
Rule 7 may be imposed by the ViceChancellor upon the recommendation of
the
Discipline
Committee
constituted
under Ordinances (Academic) Chapter XI.

(ii) Penalties other than those
specified in Clause (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and
(xiii) of Rule 7 may also be imposed by any
of the Officers enumerated in Rule 5, within
their respective jurisdictions.

(iii) Penalties on the offences
relating to Examination will be dealt by the
relevant bodies.
Part - IV
7. Nature of Penalties:

The following penalties may, for
act of indiscipline or misconduct or for
sufficient reasons, be imposed on a student,
namely:

(i)
Written
warning
and
information to the guardian.

(ii) Fine upon Rs. 500/- which
may extent upto Rs. 2,500/-.

(iii) Suspension from the Class /
Department / College / Hostel / Mess /
Library / or availing of any other facility.

(iv) Suspension or cancellation of
Scholarships, fellowship or any financial
assistance
from
any
source
or
recommendation to that effect to the
sanctioning agency.

(v) Recover of pecuniary loss
caused to University Property.

(vi) Debarring from participation
in Sports / NCC / NSS and other such
activities.

(vii) Disqualifying from holding
any representative position in the Class /
College / Hostel / Mess / Sports / Clubs and
in similar other bodies.

(viii) Hostel shift and Hall shift.

(ix) Sent down.

(x)
Expulsion
from
the
Department / Faculty / Hostel / Mess /
Library / Club for a specified period.

(xi)
Debarring
from
an
examination.

(xii)
Issue
of
Migration
Certificate.

(xiii)
Expulsion
from
the
University for a Specified Period.

(xiv) Disqualifying from further
studies, or prohibition of further admission
or re-admission.

8. xxx

9.