Full Judgment Text
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of decision: 2 April, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 8619/2018
SHREYA TULI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Dang, Adv. with
Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION
TECHNOLOGY, DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Swetank Shantanu,
Mr.Pratap Shanker and
Ms.Shilpi Shrivastava, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, who was pursuing the final semester of her
bachelor’s degree course in fashion and lifestyle accessory design with
the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as “the NIFT”), was required to work off-campus on a
project under the guidance of the NIFT faculty and submit the project
for appraisal as part of the prescribed curriculum. Guidelines for the
internship, to be undertaken by the candidates, including the
petitioner, were contained in an undated circular, issued by the
Department of Fashion and Lifestyle Accessory Design, of the NIFT,
annexed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition.
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 1 of 8
2. In accordance with the above requirement, the petitioner applied
to various design studios in India and abroad for her project and
undertaking internship. She was accepted as an intern by the Bihain
Design and Architecture Studio in Belgium (hereinafter referred to as
“Bihain”), and by M/s Dolphin Creations Limited, in India
(hereinafter referred to as “Dolphin”). The Bihain being a prestigious
Design and Architecture Studio in Belgium, the petitioner decided to
intern with it and intimated the NIFT, accordingly, vide e-mail, dated
th
4 October, 2017. As the acquiring of a Visa for travelling to
Belgium, to undertake the afore-said internship with Bihain, was
taking time, the petitioner, purportedly “by way of abundant Caution
th
and to make use the period in India” joined Dolphin, in India, on 11
December, 2017, and commenced work on her project.
3. The writ petition avers that the petitioner was unable to secure a
Visa for travelling to Belgium in order to take up internship with
Bihain, and that, on this fact been brought to the notice of a course
coordinator in the NIFT, she was informed that, as she had intimated
the NIFT that she would be undertaking internship with Bihain, she
could not change her internship to Dolphin midway.
4. The petitioner submits that this created a sense of panic in her,
as it meant that she would not be able to graduate, or submit her
project under internship with Dolphin, which would result in her
losing the academic year as well as opportunities for further
admissions to the colleges to which she had been selected. This,
according to the petitioner, resulted in her misrepresenting, to the
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 2 of 8
th
NIFT, on 9 March, 2018, that she was interning with Bihain in
Belgium, whereas she was actually interning with Dolphin in India.
5. Smelling a rat, as it were, the jury of the NIFT required the
petitioner to provide details of her travel including her tickets, a copy
of her passport and a copy of her Visa, to the jury, consequent on her
return to Belgium, and also required the petitioner to submit her
graduation project confirmation, along with the e-mail id of her
mentor. She was asked to report, to the AD Department of the NIFT
th
on 27 March, 2018, with all original papers.
6. At this stage, the petitioner addressed an e-mail, to the NIFT,
apologizing for having misrepresented the fact that she was interning
with Dolphin, and making it appear that she was interning with Bihain
in Belgium.
7. The matter was, apparently, put up before the Local Advisory
th
Standing Committee (LASC) in the NIFT on 27 March, 2018, which
examined the matter in the context of Rule D2.10 and D2.12 of the
nd
students’ Rule Book and, vide letter, dated 2 May, 2018, conveyed,
to the petitioner, its decision to permanently expel her from the NIFT.
8. The NIFT also refused to accept the graduation project of the
petitioner, submitting under internship with Dolphin.
9. An appeal was preferred, by the petitioner, against the afore-
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 3 of 8
nd
mentioned decision, dated 2 May, 2018, of the LASC, under Rule
D5.5 of the NIFT Rules, before the Directorate of General, NIFT. Vide
th
order dated 19 July, 2018, the Directorate of General, NIFT rejected
the said appeal. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner
by the Head of Academic Affairs of the NIFT vide the impugned
th
communication, dated 19 July, 2018.
10. In view of the fact that the petitioner has acknowledged the
lapse, committed by her, in the pleadings in the writ petition, there is,
obviously no scope for any interference with the impugned decisions,
insofar as the findings of facts, therein, are concerned.
11. Having said that, however, clause D5.2 of the Rules and
Regulations applicable to the NIFT, which deals with the penalties for
major disciplinary violations, and admittedly under which the
petitioner has been permanently expelled from the NIFT, reads thus:
“D.5.2 PENALTIES FOR MAJOR DISCIPLINARY
VIOLATION:
Where the violation is considered to be major by the
Competent Authority the following penalties may be
imposed for the major disciplinary violations:
a) Suspension / debarment from the Institute where
the student will be declared 'persona-non-grata' and will
be debarred from entering the premises, facilities and
from attending the classes.
b) Permanent expulsion from the institute
c) Any other course of action which may be
reasonable in the circumstances”
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 4 of 8
12. Even in cases of major disciplinary violations, therefore,
permanent expulsion from the NIFT is not an inevitable sequitur.
Rather, the competent authority is granted practically unlimited
discretion to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the
delinquent student, which could range from suspension/debarment
from the institute, to declaring the student persona non grata to
permanent expulsion, or “any other course of action which may be
reasonable in these circumstances”.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that his
client was not given an opportunity of hearing, either by the LASC,
nd
before passing of the order, dated 2 May, 2018 or by the DG, NIFT,
th
before passing of the order dated 19 July, 2018.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that, from the
lrecord, before this Court as well as instructions obtained from his
client, this appears to be the correct position, inasmuch as the records
clearly discloses that the petitioner was not heard by the DG, NIFT,
th
before passing of the order, dated 19 July, 2018, and insofar as the
nd
order dated 2 May, 2018, is concerned, all that is forthcoming on
record, is that the petitioner was present in person with her father,
th
before the course coordinator of the NIFT on 27 March, 2018,
whereafter the file put up/presented before the LASC. The recital,
th
therein, in the impugned appellate order, dated 19 July, 2018, merits
reproduction thus:
“9. Appellant along with her father reported to NIFT
th
on 27 March. 2018 and confessed in writing that she
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 5 of 8
lied about her GP, and created email id for
communication. She has also tendered her apology to Mr.
Michael Bihain via email dated 27.03.2018. That the case
th
was placed before LASC held on 27 March, 2018 which
was examined under rule D.2.10 and D.2.12 of Student
Rule Book which deals with conduct which constitutes a
criminal offence.
10. The NIFT Academic Manual, provision 5.5 for
'Penalties for major Disciplinary Violation' provides that
"Where the violation is considered to be major by the
Competent Authority the following penalties may be
imposed for the major disciplinary violation:
i) Suspension/debarment from the Institute where the
student will be declared 'persona-non-grata' and will be
debarred from entering the premises, facilities and from
attending the classes.
ii) Permanent expulsion from the institute.
iii) Any other course of action which may be reasonable
in the circumstances."
11. Taking into consideration the gross misconduct and
criminal offence committed by the Appellant, the LASC
unanimously opined and recommended that major
penalty of "Permanent expulsion" from the Institute may
be imposed. Accordingly, with the approval of the
Competent Authority, a penalty of permanent expulsion
was imposed on the Appellant, Ms. Shreya Tuli.”
15. It goes without saying that the authority which took decision, to
the prejudice of the petitioner, ought to have heard her prior thereto.
Such hearing, needless to say, would have to be limited to the issue of
quantum of punishment, as there can be no question of the petitioner
being permitted to reopen the entire issue on facts, given the candid
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 6 of 8
admission, by her, even in the pleadings before this Court. The
petitioner would, however, be undoubtedly entitled to try and
convince the concerned authorities to award her a lesser punishment
than the punishment of permanent expulsion from the NIFT, which
stands awarded to her.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the petitioner be
permitted an audience before the LASC in the NIFT, so that she is
able to put up a plea for reduction of punishment.
17. Without intending this order to be an expression of opinion, in
any manner, one way or the other, regarding the said plea, or the
legitimacy thereof, I am of the opinion, that in the interests of justice,
the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to present herself
before the LASC, and advance submissions for reduction of
punishment.
18. Needless, to say, such submissions, if advanced, would be
considered by the LASC on its own merits, and nothing contained in
this order would influence the LASC in that regard.
19. In the event of the decision being adverse to the interests of the
petitioner, the subsequent rights of the petitioner, by way of further
appeal, against the said decision, needless to say, would stand
reserved.
20. For this purpose, the petitioner is directed to present herself
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 7 of 8
th
before the LASC on 10 April, 2019, on any other date as would be
communicated by the NIFT, on the petitioner’s e-mail id, being
shreyatuli@hotmail.com , as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Court today.
21. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed
of with no orders as to costs.
Dasti.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 02, 2019
bh
W.P.(C) 8619/2018 Page 8 of 8