# Prakhar Nagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 456
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21339 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakhar-nagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50668
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226
Petitioner
has
assailed
the
punishment of rustication imposed by the
respondents-University- Petitioner was never
served a charge-sheet containing a St.ment of
charges along with the adverse material which
8 All. Prakhar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
was relied upon by the respondents-authorities
while passing the impugned order- Enquiry
against the petitioner which culminated in the
impugned orders was passed by adopting a
procedure not known to law- Enquiry report
does not discuss the nature of the St.ments and
the manner in which they indicted the
petitioner- impugned orders of punishment
perverse and illegal.

Respondent-university is directed to issue a
fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner treating him
as a regular student. The fresh mark sheet shall
evaluate the applicant out of the
100
marks. The respondent-University shall remove
the B cap and shall also refrain from making any
reference to the disciplinary action against the
petitioner
and
delete
the
endorsement
"reappearance in September, 2020" in the fresh
mark-sheet. The disciplinary action against the
petitioner shall not be disclosed by the
university to any other authority. (E-15)

## Text

456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
व 56/4/0.02 एकड़ बना है। त्रजसकी नई वतामान भूखण्ड सं०
514/0.190 हे०. 515/0.942 हे० व 529/0.174 हे०
बना है, त्रजसे त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड कहा जा रहा है।

5- यह त्रक उक्त ग्राम की चकबन्दी की कायावाही बीत जाने
के काफी त्रदनों बाद वर्ा 2011 में हम वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर
की मृत्यु हो गई तथा उनके मृत्युपरान्त वात्रदनी त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड पर
बहैत्रसयत तनहा भूत्रमधर मुतवाररत वरासतन कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं
अध्यात्रसत चली आ रही है।

6- यह त्रक त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड पर चकबन्दी पूवा के खतौनी में
तथा दौरान चकबन्दी आधार वर्ा की खतौनी, जोत चकबन्दी
आकार पि-1, जोत चकबन्दी आकार पि-23 भाग (प) एवं
उसके बाद के अन्य अत्रभलेखों मे वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर का
नाम बहैत्रसयत तनहा भूत्रमधर अंत्रकत चला आया तथा अपने
जीवनकाल तक कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं अध्यात्रसत रहें।

7- यह त्रक चूंत्रक प्रत्रतवादी प्रथम पक्ष काफी चालाक एवं
मुकदमेबाज त्रकस्म के व्यत्रक्त है, त्रजन्होने त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड को
हड़पने की त्रनयत से चकबन्दी अहलकारान को अपने सात्रजश में
करके जोत चकबन्दी आकार अत्रधकारी के आदेश के अपना नाम
अंत्रकत करा त्रलया तथा वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर का नाम
अत्रभलेखों से हटवा त्रदया। त्रजसकी कतई कोई त्रवत्रधक पाबन्दी
वात्रदनी पर नही है एवं उसकी कतई कोई जानकारी हम वात्रदनी के
पत्रत राजत्रकशोर व वात्रदनी को नही हो पाई। इस प्रकार त्रववात्रदत
भूखण्ड पर त्रप्रतवादी प्रथम पक्ष का नाम खतौनी में ऋत्रटपूणा तरीके से
अंत्रकत चला आ रहा है।"

22. The aforementioned paragraph nos.
3,4,5 and 6 of the plaint discloses the cause of
action to the plaintiff to file suit for
declaration of her right under Section 144 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as such rejection of
plaint or dismissal of suit under Section 144
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at the very
initial stage will be illegal.

23. So fas as the argument advanced by
the learned senior counsel for petitioner that
suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.
C.H. Act is concerned, the same shall be
considered during trial at a appropriate stage.
The petitioner will have full opportunity to
get the issue framed on the point of Section
49 of U.P. C.H. Act and to lead evidence on
the issue in accordance with law.

24. The case law cited by learned
senior counsel for the petitioner will not be
applicable in the circumstances of the case
as indicated above.

26. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as ratio laid down by
this Court in Pan Kumari (supra) and
Roshan Singh @ Bunti (supra), no
interference
is
required
against
the
impunged orders. The writ petition is
dismissed. However, the Trial Court shall
frame issue in the matter in accordance
with law including the issue of Section 49
of the U.P. C.H. Act and decide the suit
after giving opportunity to the parties to
lead evidence in accordance with law
expeditiously.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 21339 of 2020

Prakhar Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Jigar Khare, Sri
Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri Rahul
Chaubey, Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226
Petitioner
has
assailed
the
punishment of rustication imposed by the
respondents-University- Petitioner was never
served a charge-sheet containing a St.ment of
charges along with the adverse material which
8 All. Prakhar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
was relied upon by the respondents-authorities
while passing the impugned order- Enquiry
against the petitioner which culminated in the
impugned orders was passed by adopting a
procedure not known to law- Enquiry report
does not discuss the nature of the St.ments and
the manner in which they indicted the
petitioner- impugned orders of punishment
perverse and illegal.

Respondent-university is directed to issue a
fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner treating him
as a regular student. The fresh mark sheet shall
evaluate the applicant out of the
100
marks. The respondent-University shall remove
the B cap and shall also refrain from making any
reference to the disciplinary action against the
petitioner
and
delete
the
endorsement
"reappearance in September, 2020" in the fresh
mark-sheet. The disciplinary action against the
petitioner shall not be disclosed by the
university to any other authority. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner has assailed the
punishment of rustication imposed by the
respondents-University for a period of six
months by order dated 25.02.2020, and the
order dated 16.03.2020 in appeal reducing
the punishment of rustication for a period
of three months. The petitioner has also
prayed for issuance of fresh marks-sheet
reflecting the evaluation of the petitioner's
performance out of 100 marks, and to
delete
the
endorsement
marks
"Reappearance September 2020" and to
remove the B Cap on the marks secured by
the petitioner. Further, the prayer is that the
marks-sheet should not reference the
rustication of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a student of
B.Tech (CSE) in the respondent-University.
The
petitioner
was
charged
by
the
university for various acts of indiscipline.
The substance of the charges against the
petitioner as disclosed in the impugned
order 25.02.2020 are extracted hereunder:

"The
Students
Disciplinary
Committee (SDC) in its meeting held on
11th February, 2020 discussed the case of
student Mr. Prakhar Nagar student of
B.Tech (CSE), Batch 2016-20, Enrollment
No.A2305216644, Institute-Amity School
of Engineering & Technology, who was
alleged to have committed an act of
indiscipline during earlier and current
academic years.

The SDC examined all the
available information with respect to the
case and after due deliberation concluded
that he had committed the following act of
indiscipline-

Violation of student code of
conduct - para ii, xiv, xviii.

R4/3/6/(g)
Indulging
in
or
encouraging in a conduct which involves
moral turpitude.

R4/3/6/(m)
Any
attempt
at
bribing or corruption of any manner or
description.

R4/3/6/(q) Causing disruption of
any manner of the academic functioning of
the University system.

R4/3/6(r)
Indulging
in
or
encouraging any form of disruptive activity
connected with tests, examinations or any
other activity of the University or the
college or the institution, as the case may
be."

3. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel assisted by Shri Jigar Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner makes the
following submissions:

I.
The
charges
against
the
petitioner are vague and of a general
nature.
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

II. The impugned orders were
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

III. There is no material in the
record to justify the imposition of the
aforesaid punishment.

IV.
The
punishment
is
disproportionate.

4. Per contra, Shri Rahul Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the respondentsUniversity
submits
that
the
charges
constitute a grave act of indiscipline. An
inquiry was duly conducted into the matter.
The punishment is proportionate and has
been imposed with a view to deter others
from wrong doings. The charges are
supported by material in the record.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
respective parties.

6. The petitioner has specifically
asserted that the petitioner was never
served
a
charge-sheet
containing
a
statement of charges along with the adverse
material which was relied upon by the
respondents-authorities while passing the
impugned order.

7. The specific pleadings in the writ
petiton in this regard are not traversed by
the respondents in their counter affidavits.
Failure to serve a charge-sheet disclosing
charges with material particulars upon the
petitioner disabled him from tendering an
effective defence of his case. The omission
constitutes a grave violation of principles
of natural justice. The vague nature of the
charges
vitiates
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

8. The second faultline in the
impugned orders is that they were passed
on the foot of an ex parte enquiry. The
pleadings in the writ petition in regard to
the enquiry being conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice too have not
been traversed in the counter affidavit. The
enquiry
against
the
petitioner
which
culminated in the impugned orders was
passed by adopting a procedure not known
to law.

9. Attention has been called by the
respondents to the certain proceedings chart
appended to the counter affidavit to
contend that the petitioner participated in
the enquiry proceedings. However, in
absence of pleadings in the counter
affidavit in regard to the participation of the
petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, the
document is of no avail to the respondents.

10. Even if the aforesaid documents
are taken in the face value, the pleadings of
the respondents-university do not disclose
that the said documents were served upon
the petitioner or that the petitioner was
noticed on the aforesaid adverse material at
any point in time. The said adverse material
including the report appended to the writ
petition became the basis of punitive action
against the petitioner. The prejudice caused
to the petitioner by the said procedure
followed by the respondents is beyond
recall.

11. The submission that the enquiry
report too was not served upon the
petitioner precluding him from refuting the
same shall now be considered. The counter
affidavit baldly asserts that the said enquiry
report was sent to the petitioner along with
the suspension order. There is no proof of
service upon the petitioner. However, in the
interest of justice, the Court has perused the
report. The said report merely references
some students who had mentioned the
name of the petitioner. It is noteworthy that
8 All. Prakhar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
the enquiry report does not discuss the
nature of the statements and the manner in
which
they
indicted
the
petitioner.
Indictment of the petitioner on the basis of
the enquiry report is perverse.

12. In this wake in the absence of
such consideration the enquiry report is
vitiated by violation of principles of natural
justice and non application of mind.

13.

The
impugned
orders
of
punishment passed on the foot of the said
enquiry report are consequently perverse
and illegal.

14. There is another aspect of the
matter.

15. The scheme of punitive action in
an institution of higher learning is an
indispensable feature of its administration.
The penal regime in a system has to
amalgamate essential elements to maintain
discipline in the University which is
conducive to its academic atmosphere and
a reformative approach which is critical to
transformation of the students. The key to
an effective system of disciplinary action is
the balance between deterrent effect and
reformative possibilities.

16. This Court in Anant Narayan
Mishra v. The Union of India and 4
others1 set its face against adoption of
solely punitive regime to deal with the
indiscipline or aberrant behaviour by the
students to the complete exclusion of a
reformist
approach.
Anant
Narayan
Mishra (supra) directed a composite
scheme to deal with matters relating to
indiscipline or aberrant behaviour by young
scholars wherein a penal system is duly
integrated with a reformative approach. The
UGC in compliance of the directions of this
Court issued appropriate guidelines on
13.04.2023 to all University for creating a
scheme
for
reformation
and
self
development for students accused of
misconduct to supplement the penal regime
for correcting misconduct.

17. The Court is informed that the
University is implementing the guidelines
of UGC dated 13.04.2023. The University
is developing a comprehensive reform and
self development program to deal with such
matters in compliance of UGC guidelines
dated 13.04.2023.

18. The petitioner passed B.Tech
course in the year 2020. The marks-sheet
issued to him evaluated his performance
out of 70 marks instead of 100 marks for all
other students while applying the B Cap.
Secondly the mark-sheet also references the
rustication of the petitioner.

19. The said action visits the
petitioner
with
enduring
penal
consequences and will blight his future no
end. The petitioner had undergone the
punishment of rustication. There was no
occasion to disable him perpetually by
making the assailed endorsements in the
marks-sheet and marking him on 70 marks
instead of 100 while applying B Cap
formulae.

20. The petitioner it is stated that the
petitioner is a young adult person with a
bright future. The university-authorities
failed to leaven the punitive action with a
reformative programme which would have
enabled the petitioner to turn a new leaf
and make amends for his errors if any.

21. Purely punitive action was taken
by the University against the petitioner, to
the exclusion of opportunities to reform his
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conduct, explore possibilities of excellence
and redeem his reputation. In matters
pertaining to errant behaviour by students
such approach may make the action
vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of
disproportionality.

22.

Disproportionality
vitiates
punitive action. [See: Ranjit Thakur v.
Union of India and others2]

23.

The
punishment
is
disproportionate and is liable to be set aside
on this count as well.

24. The impugned order dated
25.02.2020 as well as the impugned
appellate
order
dated
16.03.2020
rusticating for various periods are arbitrary
and illegal. The impugned orders dated
25.02.2020
and
16.03.2020
are
unsustainable in law and are liable to be set
aside.

25. In this wake, the application of the
B Cap is unsustainable in law and is set
aside.

26. The respondent-university is
directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet to the
petitioner treating him as a regular student.
The fresh marksheet shall evaluate the
applicant out of the 100 marks. The
respondent-University shall remove the B
cap and shall also refrain from making any
reference to the disciplinary action against
the petitioner and delete the endorsement
"reappearance in September, 2020" in the
fresh mark-sheet. The disciplinary action
against the petitioner shall not be disclosed
by the university to any other authority.

27. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 460
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 21402 of 2023

Pooja Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishnam Pandey, Sri Aman Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, Sri Hridai
Narain Pandey

Held -
Request for change of name in educational
records, when based on self - acquired name by
choice, must be preceded by declaration from a
competent Civil Court and publication in the
Official Gazette, as per guidelines laid down by
the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE
(2021) 7 SCC 535. The Court, relying upon
paragraph 171 of said judgment, held that CBSE
is not an adjudicating authority for such name
changes
and
cannot
bypass
procedural
safeguards. Power to grant declaratory relief
regarding a person's legal status, including
name, vests exclusively in Civil Courts under
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Jigya Yadav (Minor) through guardian/father
Hari Singh Vs Central Board of Secondary
Education & ors., (2021) 7 SCC 535

2. Rashmi Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ -
C No. 16056 of 2021

Petition disposed off with liberty to seek
declaration from competent Civil Court.
Upon compliance, the Board shall consider
the case in light of Supreme Court's
directions.