Suspended Without Intimating Charge, Violates Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court Allows 5th Year Law Student To Appear In Semester Exam

Yesterday, the Allahabad High Court granted relief to a 5^th year law student who was suspended without being informed the charges or allegations against him, by permitting him to appear in the end semester examination. 

Stating that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct of The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Justice Manish Mathur held,

“In the present, since no specific charge or allegation has even been served upon the petitioner, there obviously cannot be any reply submitted by petitioner in the absence of any specific charge or allegation. Students cannot be expected to imagine a charge and then subsequently, reply to same.”

Case Background

Petitioner, a 5^th year BBA LLB student at the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, approached the High Court against his suspension order and seeking relief to appear in the end semester examination.

Counsel for the respondent challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds that remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner under Section 32 of The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994. It was challenged on grounds of the multiple reliefs sought.

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors, counsel for petitioner argued that since there was violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the suspension order.

Further, it was argued that the punishment order was in violation of Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct of the University which provides that punishment cannot be imposed on a student unless he is found guilty of the charges levelled against him, after following due process of law and giving him/ her opportunity of hearing. It was argued that the no notice of any particular charge was ever given to petitioner.

High Court Verdict

Observing that there was violation of principles of natural justice, the Court held that the preliminary objection was not sustainable and proceeded on merits.

Though the counsel for the University argued that the petitioner was given a stern warning and served with a notice, the Court observed that the suspension order mentioned no such notice or the charges levelled against the petitioner.

“Neither any material on record of the petition nor even in the record submitted by learned counsel for University today indicates any charge having been served upon the petitioner

prior to passing of the impugned order. Only vague notices directing petitioner to put forth his case, in the considered opinion of this Court would not come within purview of Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct.”

The Court observed that Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct specifically provided that for imposing punishment such as suspension, “the person should be charged by the Proctor whereafter an inquiry by providing due opportunity to the student is mandatory.”

Justice Mathur held that the charged on which the petitioner was suspended were never made known to him, thus making him incapable of replying to them. It was held that the due opportunity of replying to the charges mandated by Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct was never provided to the petitioner.

Holding that the order showed non-application of mind, the Court quashed the suspension order and directed the University to allow the petitioner appear in the examination, provided there was no other impediment.

Case Title: Utkarsh Tripathi v. United Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Thru. Vice Chancellor And Others [WRIT - C No. - 10105 of 2024]

Counsel for Petitioner: Atul Kumar Dixit

Counsel for Respondent: Dr. V.K. Singh, Mr. Umesh Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order