WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 1 of 58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.10196/2009 % Date of Decision: 07.10.2009 Pranshu S. Raghuvansh …. Petitioner Through Mr.Navin Chawla and Mr.Vikram Singh & Mr. Bhanu Pant and Ms. Shubhra Sharma Advocates Versus Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology …. Respondent Through Mr.Raghu Nayyar and Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES ANIL KUMAR, J. * 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of memorandum dated 10th July, 2009 expelling the petitioner from the respondent institute, on the ground that the same is passed without following the statutes of the Institute and without following the principles of natural justice and seeking a direction to allow petitioner to attend the next session starting in the last week of July 2009 and also permit the petitioner to reappear in the theory and practical examinations which was already held from WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 2 of 58 29th April, 2009, till 4th May, 2009. The petitioner has also sought exemplary cost of Rs.5.00 lakhs in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent. 2. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner took admission for B.Tech. Course (Information Technology) in the month of August, 2008. The plea of the petitioner is that he is actively involved in the various co-curricular activities and his academic performance is also considerably good. 3. The petitioner assertion is that on 23rd April, 2009, he went to the Institute around 10.30 PM along with his two fellow college students, namely, Ishaan and Shashank, to play pool which is open 24 hours a day for the faculty and also for the students. One of the students also signed the relevant register in the presence of the guard. The allegation of the petitioner is that while he was playing pool, he saw Ishaan in the room of one of the visiting faculty of the respondent, whereas Shashank was standing near the window of the room and they were doing something in the laptop lying in that room. According to the petitioner, when he saw the conduct of the students, he went to the guard of the institute and informed him about it, who was, however, indifferent to it. The petitioner also alleged that he tried to persuade the two students not to do whatsoever they were doing and to move out from the room of WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 3 of 58 the faculty. The other students, however, did not accede to the request of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner asserted that around 11.15 PM Ishaan and Shashank, other two students returned to the hostel. At the time of their return he had seen them carrying some print outs. On 25th April, 2009, the petitioner was summoned by the Director of the respondent and he was asked to give his statement in writing of the events happened on 23rd April, 2009. The parents of the petitioner were also called and they were asked to withdraw the petitioner from the course otherwise he would be expelled on the ground of academic dishonesty as the petitioner was contributory to the incident of entering teacher‟s room, tampering with the records/data and obtaining question paper of the examination. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, was served with an email dated 27th April, 2009 at about 4.29 PM directing him to be present before the Senate meeting on 28th April, 2009. According to the petitioner he was coerced on 28th April, 2009 in either opting for withdrawal or suffer expulsion. The written statement of the petitioner was, however, taken on record and without providing any reasonable hearing he was asked to leave the conference room and at about 8.15 PM, he was called to accept the expulsion order which was accepted by the petitioner under WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 4 of 58 protest. However, the petitioner was not even given permission to write anything in the said order. The petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination from 29th April, 2009 onwards. 6. That aggrieved by the expulsion order petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No.8680/2009 titled Pranshu S.Raghuvansh v. Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology in which an Hon‟ble Single Judge by order dated 1st May, 2009 declined to stay the order of expulsion dated 28th April, 2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 1st May, 2009 declining to stay the expulsion order, a LPA No.207/2009 was filed where it was agreed by the petitioner that the Senate of the respondent institute would give show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter on hearing the petitioner and considering his representation a reasoned order would be passed. The LPA was disposed of by order dated 12th May, 2009 in view of the mutual understating arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent. 7. The petitioner was thereafter, served a show cause notice dated 22nd May, 2009 and the documents were supplied to him only after they were demanded by the petitioner, but he was not supplied all the relevant documents. A brief reply to show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 23rd June, 2009 and thereafter petitioner appeared before the Senate on 1st July, 2009. The petitioner was thereafter served with a WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 5 of 58 memorandum dated 10th July, 2009 either opt for withdrawal from the institute or suffer expulsion. The petitioner declined to opt for withdrawal by his email dated 11th July, 2009 thereafter the order of his expulsion became effective which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition seeking quashing of memorandum dated 10th July, 2009 and allow the petitioner to attend the next session starting in last week of July, 2009 and allow the petitioner to reappear in the theory and practical examination which had been held from 29th April, 2009. 8. The plea of the petitioner is that despite having a conclusive finding by the Senate that the petitioner was not involved in the act of tampering of records, he has been expelled from the course. The action of the respondent is alleged to be in denial of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner asserted that despite the allegation that he had tried to copy the question paper, no material was produced in support of this plea. The decision of the Senate is also challenged on the ground that it is only an academic body and does not have the power to punish the students as per the scheme of the Act. According to petitioner he could only be fined according to clause 21 (2) of the Statute. The petitioners also contended that he was admittedly inside the Institute premises on that fateful day but he had not been inside WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 6 of 58 the faculty member‟s room. It is also contended that since the guard was present, it was guard's duty to prevent him from entering the Institute as he is being paid to do the same. Reliance of the Senate on the second statement of Shashank stating that he had informed the petitioner and Ishaan, is also challenged and also the conclusion that the petitioner knew about the plan. 9. According to the petitioner if it has been held by the Senate that he was not involved in tampering of academic record, then how could he obtain the question paper. The petitioner has also pointed out some contradictions in the statements of different persons and the fact that the statement of the guard was recorded after the Senate had already expelled him on 28th April, 2009. The petitioner has also challenged the order of his expulsion on the ground that the Division Bench had directed to consider the matter a-fresh, however, the whole matter has been decided on the basis of old documents and the statements. According to the petitioner new statements should have been recorded. The Change of the constitution of the Senate, as one of the members of the Senate of 28th April, 2009 was not the Senate member of the meeting held on 1st July, 2009, this plea has also been taken by the petitioner WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 7 of 58 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on AIR 1960 Allahabad 256 to contend that “academic” and “discipline” are not synonymous and the Senate has power only pertaining to academic matters and not pertaining to disciplinary matters. Reliance has also been placed on AIR 1962 SC 1110, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Ors; AIR 1958 SC 300, Khem Chand v. Union of India; AIR 1992 Karnataka 79, K.Sathyashankara Shetty v. Mangalore University; AIR 2008 SC 2953, Cantonment Executive Officer and Anr v. Vijay Diwani and AIR 1958 A.P 636, K.V.Narayana Rao and Anr. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. to contend that the principles of natural justice have not been followed and reasonable opportunity has not been given to the petitioner, as he was not given right to cross examine and some members of the Senate disqualified themselves from taking any action as they had conducted the investigations. Reliance has also been placed on AIR 1989 SC 1582 (Para 28) to contend that the Director could not delegate his power to Senate as it is higher in authority and AIR 2003 Karnataka 136 to assert that by exercising judicial restraint Courts do not have to close their eyes if injustice is done under the guise of maintaining the discipline. Reliance was also placed on AIR 1978 SC 851 to contend that the respondent is trying to add on words/reasoning in the expulsion order dated 1st July, 2009 which is not at all permissible in law. WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 8 of 58 11. The petition is contested by the respondent who filed the affidavit of Dr. A.R.Subramanium, Registrar of the respondent. The respondent pleaded that IIIT Delhi Act, 2007 (Delhi Act 5 of 2008-also referred to as the Act) was promulgated to establish and incorporate a non affiliating and teaching institute of Delhi to facilitate and promote studies, research, incubation and extension work in information technology and its application domains, and also to achieve excellence in these and connected fields. According to the respondent, the Act provides to regulate, enforce and for taking necessary measures for the student discipline. It is also asserted that after obtaining prior approval of the Chancellor, the Statutes were made which were notified by resolution dated 17th July, 2008. 12. According to the respondent after giving a show cause notice in compliance with the order dated 12th May, 2009 and giving a reasonable hearing to the petitioner, the Senate passed the order dated 1st July, 2009 directing the petitioner either to withdraw from the institute or to face expulsion which decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Director by memorandum No.III-D/Aca/Misc/Case/001/2009/626 dated 10th July, 2009 which is impugned by the petitioner. WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 9 of 58 13. The respondent contended that the Senate took into consideration of the statement of the petitioner and the others. After show cause notice was given to the petitioner, he was also supplied statement of Mr.Ishaan, Mr.Shashank and his statement, statement of Mr.Honey, background note prepared based on various interactions, report of security agency along with the statement of guard and copy of the relevant entry register, minutes of the Academic Dishonesty and Discipline Violations Committee and the minutes of the emergency meeting of the Senate. 14. The petitioner‟s statement which was given on 25th April, 2009 was considered which is as under:- “….We entered the IIIT premises around 10.30 PM. After that I was in the pool room. Ishaan and Shashank entered the room opening the window using the AC window. Shashank found the paper he brought it to the chairs copied it and Ishaan still was in the room searching Astrid Ma‟am‟s laptop, then Shashank copied the paper and Ishaan closed the room and we came back. And I was near the window when Ishaan started printing. When Ishaan was using the laptop he tried to print some scores, but the printer was out of paper and he gave the cancel command and shutdown the laptop. I never entered the room, and was not involved in tampering the marks.” 15. The respondent in their counter affidavit also referred to the statement of Shashank which is as under:- WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 10 of 58 “…….Ishaan, me and some other classmates went to IIT lab around 3.00 PM for checking our e-mail. Then Ishaan went to Astrid Ma‟am‟s room for asking some doubts and might saw some papers lying over there. Then we went back to the hostel. Then he told me and Pranshu that we can access TOC exam paper as he has some mutual understanding with the security guard of night shift. It was seemed to be quite unbelievable for me although for a moment, in some corner, greed also came in our minds too and we accepted but in a light way what he was saying. Then after having dinner at around 10.30 PM, we (Ishaan, me and Pranshu) went to IIIT in spirit of evening walk and playing pool and then as he (Ishaan) had some setting with the security guard, he allowed us in and do whatever we wanted. Ishaan made some entries in admin block and Pranshu and me were walking ahead. Then when me and Pranshu were in the corridor, all of a sudden Ishaan went inside Astrid Ma‟am‟s room and took the paper‟s solutions (2/3 solutions) and gave it to me to copy. I was quite astonished and shivering with anxiety and was not in a position to think anything. I copied the stuff while sitting on the chairs in front of the classroom. Pranshu was also there with me at that time. Then Pranshu followed Ishaan to the window of the room and Ishaan altered some of his marks (as told to me by Ishaan) and when they returned, they brought some printed stuff along with. Ishaan gave that to me to hold. After some time he took it back for me.” 16. The statement given by the petitioner on 28th April, 2009 when he appeared before the Senate is as under:- “……..The day before TOC paper i.e on 23rd April, 2009 I came to the hostel for preparation. By evening I had covered most of the topics. Ishaan came to me and asked whether I was prepared for the paper. I told him that I had prepared for 60-70%. Then Ishaan suggested that we WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 11 of 58 should go to IIIT to play pool or counter strike. When we (Ishaan, Shashank and me) entered IIIT (around 10.30 pm), the guard stopped Ishaan for entry. I went forward to the pool room to set the balls, from the pool room window I noticed Ishaan opening and entering the window of Astrid Madam‟s room. Shashank was standing at the window. I was surprised and puzzled at this action. Ishaan gave some paper to Shashank and Shashank took the paper to the chairs in front of the classes. Seeing this I left the pool room and when I reached there I found that it was the next day‟s TOC paper, I was simply shocked to see this. After some time I said I heard something on the roof and excused myself from the place. I went to the roof and started thinking about what was happening. Then I came back and told them that it was nothing. When I returned I saw that Ishaan was still in the room doing something in Astrid madam‟s laptop. I asked Ishaan through the door what he was doing but he couldn‟t hear me, so I went to the window to ask him what he was doing, then I saw that he was printing out something (some kind of table), then he hastily shutdown the computer and came out of the room with printout. When Shashank copied the paper he returned it to Ishaan who put it back into the room. Then I insisted them to leave the place and after that we returned back to hostel. On the way back to the hostel I realised that they have come to IIITD with some ulterior motive and I was also made a part of something serious unknowingly, only way out of this was to report the matter to the authorities, which I never had the guts to do. I decided not see the questions or their answers and do my best on my own. If the questions were known to me I would have attempted all the questions of the paper. It may be confirmed from my answer sheet. As far as changing of marks I didn‟t even know about it and it came to my knowledge during the investigation on 25th April. As I never entered the room, I was neither a WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 12 of 58 party to paper incidence nor marks changing. It may be confirmed from the records. I have been a good student and I don‟t need to do such type of things. In first semester theory examination I had secured 159 marks (out of 290) and was placed at 5th Position. This can be checked from records, for ready reference I am attaching the list mailed to me. I would like to summarise my submission as follows:- 1. I was not aware of the intentions and I went there only to play pool. 2. I never entered in the room and was only confined to the public area, entry to which is allowed. 3. I was not involved in leakage and copying of question paper and its answer. 4. I have not altered my scores in any record i.e have not tampered with the records. 5. I had no prior knowledge of questions or their answers. In light of my above submissions I humbly request you to kindly consider my case judiciously on the basis of facts stated by me. I have not done any dishonesty either academic or otherwise. Therefore, charges framed against me, if any, may be withdrawn and I must be allowed to sit in written and practical examination.” 17. The respondent also relied on another statement given by Shashank which is as under:- “…..I (Shashank), Ishaan and Pranshu came after having dinner to IIIT at around 10.30 PM. Ishaan had some setting with guard. Then we entered IIIT and the security guard knew what we came for and he allowed us to continue what we were doing. Then Ishaan went into Astrid‟s Ma‟am‟s room and took the paper and gave it to me and I took it and when to WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 13 of 58 the chairs and copied the stuff. After then Pranshu also went to the window of Astrid Ma‟am‟s room and when they came, they were carrying some printed matter. Then we put the paper at place and we went back to hostel. The records were changed before (earlier before 23rd‟s night) by Ishaan.” 18. The respondent also relied on the separate statements given by Ishaan and Shashank where the name of the petitioner was mentioned as their accomplice and aider in the whole episode. According to the respondent the role of the petitioner is evident which he played very efficiently as he went up to the roof to see if there was someone around and came back and informed others that there was nothing meaning thereby that everything was safe. The respondent also emphasized that the petitioner could not play the pool alone if other two had gone to the room of Astrid Ma‟am's room. The respondent contended that the Senate has the power to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in the matter concerning the examination and the Senate was constituted according to the draft of the constitution of 8th Board of Governors meeting, approved in the 9th Board of Governors with some modifications, copies of which are filed by the respondent. The respondent also contended that though the petitioner has been absolved of the charge of altering the academic record, however, he has been held guilty of illegally entering into Ms.Astrid‟s room and staying in the hostel without permission. WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 14 of 58 19. The respondent further asserted that the Senate also considered the suspension of the petitioner only for one year, however, since most of the Senate members felt that one year expulsion was not appropriate, therefore, the decision to expel him was taken. However, taking into consideration his future career prospects, the petitioner was given an option to withdraw from the course of the institute which offer was, however, declined by him and consequently the petitioner has been expelled. The contention of the respondent is that a fair process was followed and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and there are no grounds for interference by the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the punishment imposed on the petitioner for the extreme act of indiscipline. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Ashish Bhateja v. Indian Institute of Technology and others, Civil Writ Petition and Nazer Zohir El Yazgi v. Unioin of India and another in Civil Writ Petition No.2120/1993 and 2411/1993 decided on 2nd September, 1993; Narender Singh v. University of Delhi and others, 1998 II AD (DEL) 321; Mansoor Azam v. Zamia Millia Islamia and others, Civil Writ Petition No.3569/2000 decided on 3rd March, 2001 and Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. The Principle, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 15 of 58 and another, AIR 1973 SC 1260 to contend that the decision of the Senate is neither in denial of principle of natural justice nor the decision is liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also relied on AIR 1966 SC 875, The Board of High School & Intermediate Education U.P Vs Bagleshwar Prasad & ors to contend that all the considerations which govern the Criminal Trials in ordinary course of law cannot be imported into the enquiries conducted by the disciplinary bodies of the educational institutions. Reliance has also been placed on 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82, Controller of Examination and others Vs G.S.Sunder & another. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on order dated 4th November, 2008 in CA no. 34 of 2008 Director (Studies) & ors. Vs Vaibhav Singh Chauhan in support of respondent‟s pleas and contentions. 21. The counsel for parties were heard on various dates in support of their respective pleas and contentions. The writ petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and additional affidavit and documents filed by the parties have been considered. The Counsel for petitioner has laid down a lot of emphasis on the plea that the Senate of the Institute does not have the power to take disciplinary measures, as it is merely an academic body whose powers and responsibilities are enumerated in the section 19 of the act and clause 14 of the Statue. According to the WP (C) 10196 of 2009 Page 16 of 58 petitioner the powers detailed in the Act and the Statutes, does not give power to the Senate to take disciplinary measures and actions. Senate, according to petitioner is merely an academic body in accordance with section 2(a) and 19(1) of IIIT Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to