IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.148 of 2009 G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, Distt. U.S. Nagar through its Vice Chancellor …… Appellant Versus Km. Lalita Rana D/o Sri Balram Singh Rana, R/o Village Sadhu Nagar, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar …Respondent Dated: November 26, 2009 Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, ACJ. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, ACJ. (Oral) Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.S. Sammal, the learned counsel for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, this matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. The present special has been filed against the judgment dated 3.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order dated 5.3.2008 and permitting the writ petitioner to pursue her studies in B.Sc. Agriculture, but has not been allowed to be given any admission in the Hostel. It transpires that the petitioner committed a misconduct and allowed a male person in her room in the Girl’s Hostel. When this demeanour was discovered, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and eventually, the Registrar of the University cancelled her admission and debarred the petitioner from pursuing any further degree programme and also declared the campus of the University out of bounds for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was allowed and the order of the Registrar was set aside and was modified to the extent that the petitioner would be allowed to continue her studies in B.Sc. Agriculture which she was doing in the University and would be permitted to pursue her studies but would not be given admission in the Hostel. The University, being aggrieved, has filed the special appeal. The moot question, which arises for consideration is, whether in the given facts and admitted position of allowing a male person inside the girl’s hostel, would the authorities be justified in debarring the petitioner from pursuing any further programme in the University and whether the University was justified in declaring the campus of the University out of bounds for the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner committed a misconduct and the University was justified in passing appropriate orders for punishment, but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the punishment awarded was harsh and did not commensurate with the misconduct. The petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the Hostel facilities that was granted to her, and for that, the Authorities were justified in expelling her from the Hostel. But debarring the petitioner from pursuing any further programme and in cancelling her admission is in the opinion of the Court too harsh. The learned Single Judge was consequently justified in modifying the order of punishment and in permitting the petitioner to pursue the studies in the University and at the same time restraining the writ petitioner from not being given admission in the Hostel. After considering the matter, we clarify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner would only be permitted to complete her B.Sc. Agriculture course and nothing beyond that. If upon the completion of the course, the petitioner applies for any other course in the University, in that case, it would be open to the Authorities to consider her application for any further programme. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, ACJ.) 26.11.2009 Rdang