HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 4388 of 2024 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned ASGI for respondent No.1 and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-University. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 08.05.2024, whereby the petitioners were inflicted with a punishment of not being permitted to appear in any of the courses conducted by the University. In the same order, the petitioners were permitted to appear in on going examination after an affidavit is given with regard to the good conduct. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the harsh punishment as restraining the petitioners from appearing in any of the courses run by the University in future has been passed without observing the guidelines and without following the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the University apart from filing the counter affidavit has produced before this Court the approval of the V.C. and the documents which led to seeking the approval, which is mandatory. 5. From the perusal of the papers forwarded, it appears that the committee constituted of as many as 15 persons, had conducted the investigation, wherein it was stated that some students were performing Pooja etc with the use of a sound system, for which no permission was sought. It is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shravan Kumar, Annapurna Agnihotri, Desh Mitra Anand, Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dr. V.K. Singh Ashwani Kumar And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Education New Delhi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) stated that when the information was received, a disciplinary committee went there and asked the students to perform the Pooja without playing sound system, which was refused and the security personnel were also pushed. Subsequently, the said students went toward the home of the V.C. and made violence protests and also tried to enter in the home of the V.C. Subsequently, an altercation took place, which resulted in a fight in between the students and the security forces. Subsequently, the students were suspended from 27.04.2024 and a show cause notice was given on 29.04.2024 asking for a reply. It was stated that thereafter a disciplinary committee was constituted, which made on 02.05.2024. Subsequently, their parents were also called on 03.05.2024 and were informed of the conduct of their wards. It is also revealed that some FIR was lodged by the persons other than the University, i.e., the security agency. Thus, a view was formed that an affidavit be called from the students and a warning letter be issued with a threat that in case their conduct will not improve, strict action shall be taken against them. It is stated that based upon the said interrogation, an approval was sought from the V.C., which was given on 07.05.2024 and subsequently, an order came to be passed on 08.05.2024. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the petitioners being restrained, their career would get adversely affected for pursuing any future course in University as the said would come in the way of the petitioners pursing the studies in future. 7. My attention is also drawn to the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioners, in which, it was stated that the petitioners should show cause as to why the action may not be taken. The said show cause notice was issued on 29.04.2024. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the prescriptions contained in the code of conduct for students framed by the University, in clause 7.5, which prescribes that the Proctorial Board will forward the recommendation of punishment to be imposed on the guilty student to the disciplinary committee for passing fresh order. 9. He also draws my attention to the clause 7.9, which prescribes that in WRIC No. 4388 of 2024 2 all cases of disciplinary action, where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that a higher punishment may be imposed, he shall refer the case to the Proctorial Board for suitable action. 10. In the light of the said provisions, it is argued that the recommendations made itself prescribe that the students be warned and asked to submit an affidavit. No such prescription or recommendation was made for restraining the students from pursuing any further course in the University and thus, to that extent, the order impugned is bad in law. He further argues that no opportunity was given prior to passing such a drastic punishment. 11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie the order dated 08.05.2024 insofar as it restrains the students from pursuing any further course, is without any sanction of law and cannot be sustained and is quashed. 12. The result of the present petition being allowed as the petitioners would be permitted to pursue their further studies in accordance with law in the University. 13. In case, any further misconduct/indiscipline is noted against the petitioners by the University, severe action can be taken by the University, in accordance with law. August 28, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 4388 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench