Expulsion Overturned for Fundamental Breach of Natural Justice and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Disciplinary Rules

In brief

The question

1. Whether the expulsion order passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee was legally sustainable given the alleged non-compliance with the prescribed Disciplinary Rules.

The court held

The Court held that the expulsion order was unsustainable due to procedural illegalities and a violation of Article 14.

It also directed

The Court set aside the expulsion order contained in Memo No. 403 dated 27.02.2024.

The Court directed the College and University to publish the petitioner's examination results and certificates within six weeks.

The writ petition was allowed/disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a B.Tech student at Darbhanga Engineering College, challenged an office order (Memo No. 403, dated 27.02.2024) expelling him for one year due to alleged indiscipline and participation in unauthorized demonstrations.

¶ 2

The petitioner contended that his name was not mentioned in the initial complaint by the Principal.

¶ 7

The expulsion was initiated without framing charges or serving a show-cause notice as mandated by the Disciplinary Rules.

¶ 5

While the writ was pending, the petitioner was permitted by court order to appear for his 7th and 8th-semester examinations, subject to the final outcome of this case.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the expulsion order passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee was legally sustainable given the alleged non-compliance with the prescribed Disciplinary Rules.

¶ 4-5

ii.2. Whether the disciplinary action violated the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶ 8

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the "Disciplinary Rules for Government Engineering College/Polytechnic" (Annexure P/11), which mandate a specific three-step procedure: (a) framing and communication of charges by the Principal, (b) service of a show-cause notice, and (c) reference to a duly constituted Disciplinary Committee for recommendations only after the student's reply is found unsatisfactory.

¶ 4

The court also relied on the constitutional principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Merchant Shipping (Examination of Engineers and Engine Drivers of Fishing Vessels), Rules, 1973 General

04Reasoning

The Court found that the respondent authorities failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure. Specifically, the petitioner's name was absent from the Principal’s initial report dated 09.11.2023, which instead erroneously named or confused him with another student, Vicky Kumar Gupta.

¶ 7

The minutes of the Disciplinary Committee meeting on 18.12.2023 showed no deliberation regarding the petitioner's specific conduct.

¶ 7

The Court observed that because no formal charges were framed or communicated before the punishment was inflicted, the process lacked the fairness required by law.

¶ 8

The inclusion of the petitioner’s name by the Chairman without prior reference from the Principal constituted a "non-application of mind" and a "non-observance of prescription" mandated by the Rules.

¶ 5, 8