Bom. HC: Maharashtra Govt Criticized for Exhibiting Mindset to Curtail Liberty of Undertrials  ||  Ori. HC: Stay of Execution Proceedings Under Arbitration Act Governed by Provisions of CPC  ||  SC: Intricate Enquiry Whether Claims are Time Barred Must Not be Conducted by Referral Courts  ||  Mad. HC: Proposed Changes in Criminal Laws Could have been Brought Through Amendments  ||  Bom. HC: Govt’s Decision to Exempt Pvt. Schools From 25% RTE Quota 'Unconstitutional'  ||  Ker. HC: To Proceed Against an Offence Committed Partly in India, Sanction of Centre Not Required  ||  Del. HC: Court to Take up Matter Referred to Arbitral Tribunal if Urgency Occurs  ||  Guj. HC: Asking Unknown Woman her Name, Address Doesn’t Constitute Sexual Harassment  ||  SC: In Cases of Long Incarceration, Watali Judgement Cannot be Cited as a Precedent  ||  Kerala HC: BNSS to be Applicable in all Criminal Appeals after 1st July, 2024    

Lokesh Chugh vs. University Of Delhi And & Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (27 Apr 2023)

Reasons behind any decision are necessary to be assigned by the administrative authorities



The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the impugned Memorandum dated 10th March, 2023 passed by the Respondent-University, whereby, the Petitioner has been debarred from taking any University/College/Departmental examination for a period of one year. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the impugned order does not record any reason, much less sufficient reasons for debarring the Petitioner for a period of one year.

A bare reading of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 20th February, 2023 does not, in any way, provide any information about the clarification submitted by the Petitioner and the finding thereon by the Committee. The same has clearly not been dealt with. It is also to be noted that if the report of the Committee is perused, it only records the conclusion without considering the stand of the Petitioner. So far as the Show Cause Notice given to the petitioner is concerned, the same has been duly replied to, by him. Even in the impugned order, there is no consideration of the submission made by the petitioner.

The reasons behind any decision are necessary to be assigned by the administrative authorities. From a perusal of the facts of the present case, specifically the impugned order, this court finds that the same has been passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or considering his explanation, as was submitted by him in terms of his response. It is for this reason, this court is unable to sustain the impugned Memorandum dated 10th March, 2023, therefore, the same is set aside and the admission of the Petitioner is restored. If the University intends to take any action against the Petitioner, the same can only proceed strictly, in accordance with law and after due observance of the principles of natural justice. Petition disposed off.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved