Independent Disciplinary Proceedings for Student Misconduct Are Not Barred by Pendency of Criminal Investigation

The petitioner, a IVth Semester B.B.A. student at UPES Dehradun, challenged his suspension (dated 27.03.2025) and subsequent expulsion (dated 12.02.2026).

The disciplinary action arose from FIR No. 58 of 2025 involving alleged firing and firearm offenses under Sections 109, 191(2), 351(3), and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

The petitioner contended he was on sanctioned leave during the incident, had obtained a stay of arrest from the High Court, and argued that the University's Clause 5(c)(xviii) regarding weapons was inapplicable as no weapon was recovered from him.

The University maintained that it conducted an independent enquiry under the UPES Regulation Governing Maintenance of Discipline among Students, 2009, finding the petitioner guilty based on preponderance of probabilities.

1. Whether the University's disciplinary action was vitiated by the pendency of a criminal investigation or the grant of a stay of arrest in the same matter.

2. Whether the expulsion of the petitioner under Clause 5(c)(xviii) of the University Regulations was arbitrary, disproportionate, or violative of natural justice.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of judicial review over institutional disciplinary actions.

It relied on the principle that disciplinary proceedings are legally independent of criminal proceedings and are governed by the evidentiary standard of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt."

The University’s actions were governed by the UPES Regulation Governing Maintenance of Discipline among Students, 2009, specifically Clause 5(c)(xviii) relating to the possession/use of weapons in campus or residential premises, which the Court held includes private student accommodations.

The Court reasoned that the University's power to maintain discipline is a matter of institutional safety and is not contingent upon the final outcome of a criminal trial or the filing of a charge sheet.

It found that the University followed due process by conducting an independent enquiry wherein the Discipline Committee evaluated the material on record and provided the petitioner a hearing.

The Court accepted the University's interpretation that the recovery of a physical weapon is not a prerequisite to establishing misconduct under the regulations if the gravity of allegations warrants action.

It held that the "subjective satisfaction" of the Disciplinary Committee, reached through a procedural inquiry, does not warrant interference unless there is a clear procedural lapse or illegality.

It held that the University complied with the principles of natural justice and the punishment was not disproportionate to the misconduct established under the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, declining to interfere with the orders of suspension and expulsion.