Indefinite expulsion without furnishing the inquiry report and specific show-cause notice violates natural justice.

The petitioner, a first-semester postgraduate student in the Department of Media Studies at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, challenged his suspension by office order dated 25 July 2024, issued on the recommendation of the Chief Proctor.

The suspension followed the petitioner’s complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the promotion of a University employee and his publication of those allegations on social media.

The petitioner had been served show-cause notices dated 12 July and 19 July 2024, to which he submitted replies.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the University issued an order dated 14 August 2024 expelling him with immediate effect, prohibiting his entry into University premises and debarring him from admission to any University programme.

The petitioner contended that the expulsion was indefinite, that no specific show-cause notice proposing expulsion had been served, and that the report of the Discipline Committee had not been supplied to him.

The University asserted that the petitioner had repeatedly staged unlawful dharnas, disrupted institutional functioning, and had been expelled after consideration by the Proctorial Board and Discipline Committee.

Whether the petitioner’s expulsion for an indefinite and unspecified period, without a specific show-cause notice proposing expulsion and without furnishing the Discipline Committee’s report, violated the principles of natural justice and the governing University ordinances?

Whether the order of expulsion was legally sustainable when the applicable disciplinary framework did not authorize an indefinite period of expulsion?

Whether the legality of the petitioner’s suspension required adjudication at that stage, when the suspension had been imposed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings that culminated in the expulsion order?

The Court applied Ordinance No. 17 framed under the Central Universities Act, 2009, particularly Clause 4, which permits punishments including fine, campus ban, expulsion and rustication; Clause 6, which requires that an accused student be given a fair opportunity to defend himself before punishment is imposed; and Clause 22(b), which limits the Proctor’s power to suspending or rusticating a student for a maximum period of two weeks.

The Court also referred to Clause 12(2) of Model Ordinance 49, which similarly restricts the Proctor’s power to suspension or rustication for up to two weeks, and to the requirement under Rule 28(4) of the Second Schedule to the Central Universities Act, 2009 that the period of suspension be specified.

The governing rule of natural justice required a fair opportunity of defence, including notice of the proposed punishment and access to the material relied upon, such as the inquiry report.

Relying on X v. Maharashtra National Law University & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3258, the Court held that indefinite expulsion is harsh, disproportionate and capable of causing “academic death” by permanently depriving a student of educational opportunity.

The Court found that although disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and the petitioner had received notices concerning his alleged misconduct, he had not been served with the Discipline Committee’s report or a specific show-cause notice explaining why the extreme punishment of expulsion should be imposed.

Consequently, the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to rebut the evidence and address the proposed punishment, contrary to Clause 6 of Ordinance No. 17 and the principles of natural justice.

The Court further held that the expulsion order imposed an indefinite and unspecified prohibition, which was not shown to be authorized by the Act or the applicable ordinances and had disproportionate consequences for the petitioner’s academic career.

The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the suspension at that stage because it was treated as an interim measure connected with the disciplinary proceedings that had culminated in the impugned expulsion.

The expulsion order was accordingly set aside.

The University was directed to reinstate the petitioner, permit him to complete his course and allow him to appear in examinations.

The petitioner was also expected to maintain discipline within the institution.

The writ petition was allowed.