1 2025:CGHC:55240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5338 of 2025 1. Ashutosh Behra S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Behra Aged About 21 Years Student Of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (Semester-V), R/o Nawapara Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Registrar Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Proctor Officer Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Members Proctorial Board, Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Then Chief Warden Hnlu, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 6. Members Of The Review Committee Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh K. Behra, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 to 6: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Savyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.11.13 17:53:28 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 12/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1.That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 09-09-2025 (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated 28-04- 2025 (Annexure P-3) . 10.2.That, this Hon’ble Court may be kindly be pleased to direct the respondent University to conduct special Mid-term Examination of the5th Semester according to HNLU Rules in favour of the petitioner. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may be kindly be pleased to direct the respondent University to allow the petitioner to attend the further classes, upcoming examination and extracurricular activities with due respect to the Hall of Residence facilities as well. 10.4.That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent University to conduct the petitioner’s not allowed two papers of the 4th Semester End-term Examination, and further ensure that the same be treated as regular examination papers and not as attendance back papers. 10.5. That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent’s University to refrain from issuing any threats or taking any coercive measures agianst the petitioner in relation to his future academic pursuits and extracurricular activities. 10.6. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. Though petitioner has raised multiple grounds in writ petition, however, during course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if based on surprise inspection done by the Chief Warden of Hostel of the room of petitioner, some prohibited and incriminating articles were found, then 3 also the Campus Proctorial Board and the Review Committee ought to have taken lenient view and could have imposed penalty upon petitioner as prescribed under Category II (c) of the Hidayatullah National Law University Disciplinary Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and not under Category III (a). He also contended that next semester exams are scheduled to start from 14.11.2025 and therefore, modifying the order of punishment, petitioner may be permitted to appear in scheduled semester exam. He lastly contended that indiscipline act is committed by petitioner, who is a student and financially dependent upon his parents, and therefore, it will be burden upon parents of petitioner to deposit fine amount. Monetary penalty of fine imposed under Category III (a) of Rs.25,000/- is maximum penalty as provided under the said provision. Monetary penatly of Rs.25,000/- is on much higher side and would be upon parents, therefore, it be reduced. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent University opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that on complaint being made by the student, a surprise inspection of hostel room of petitioner was conducted by the Chief Warden and various prohibited and incriminating articles kept in a polythene along with beer, cigarette packets & stubs, one WAZTCO projector, lighters, 4 match boxes, AI Fakher berry ice vape, syringe etc. were recovered and seized. Inspection proceeding was conducted in accordance with regulatory and disciplinary framework of the University and observing principles of natural justice. Petitioner admitted before the Proctorial Board that seized articles as mentioned in inspection report were present in his room. Videography was also done at the time of inspection. Prior to passing the order of academic suspension, reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put- forth his case. The Proctorial Board after conducting a detailed inquiry and considering the depositions of the petitioner and other students involved, complaint filed by the Chief Warded, passed the order of penalty. The Review Committee while considering appeal of petitioner upheld the decision of the Proctorial Board, however, in order to safeguard the future prospects of petitioner had adopted a considerate and reform-focused approach and reduced the period of academic suspension from four semesters to two semesters. He submits that impugned punishment is imposed upon petitioner with intent to provide him an opportunity to acknowledge the gravity of mistake, learn from it and reform without facing lifelong stigma of a criminal record. He further submits that in the matters of discipline or administration of internal affairs of the University, the Courts should be most 5 reluctant to interfere and in support thereof, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and another vs. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi and another, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 279 and Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University vs. Chaig Macleod reported in (2012) 11 SCC 275. 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 5. Petitioner has filed proceedings of Campus Proctorial Board as Annexure P-6. Perusal of this proceeding would show that complaint was made by Chief Warden of Hostel on 28.4.2025 against 12 students of undergraduate batch of 2023-2028 residing in Block-A of boys hostel. It is mentioned in complaint that on 25.4.2025 they got information regarding possession / possible consumption of liquor and prohibited substances, whereupon the Chief Warden along with three Wardens conducted a surprise inspection in 1st floor of Block-A of hostel building. When they reached in Room F-51, allotted to petitioner, they found it locked and upon peeping through portion of window, they sighted bottles and cigarette. They made phone call to petitioner, which went unanswered and thereafter in presence of occupations/petitioner, wardens and security personnel, they made search and recovered about 12 prohibited items including three black polythene packets 6 containing prohibited articles. It also mentions that videogrpahed evidence was placed by Chief Warden; video graphic evidence submitted by petitioner with his deposition and deposition of students summoned. As per observation, nature and quantity of articles indicate recurrent contravention of hostel/university rules and raise concerns regarding fire safety, residential/academic environment and potential influence on other students. Proceedings also shows that petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing, he admitted that confiscated/seized items listed in the report of Chief Warden were present in his room. After conclusion of proceeding, the Campus Proctorial Board has recommended for imposition of following penalty against petitioner:- • Category 1 (b), (c), (h), (m): Monetary penalty Rs.5,000/- • Category II (c): Monetary penalty Rs.10,000/- • Category III (a): Monetary penalty Rs.25,000/- and Academic Suspension for 4 semesters. • Further action: The University may consider referral under Category IV of the HNLU Disciplinary Rules as appropriate. • Directions: see Section 9 below (apology, undertaking)” 6. Apart from recommended penalties, ancillary direction was also issued which reads thus:- “9. Ancillary Directions:- 7 1. Unconditional Apology: Concerned students to tender a written, unconditional apology to the University administration. 2. Parent Undertaking: Parents/guardians of the penalized students shall provide an undertaking to counsel their ward to desist from substance abuse and to ensure good conduct. 3. Breach Consequence: Any breach of the undertaking or further violation of Hostel/University Rules shall result in hostel suspension in addition to any other penalties under the Rules.” 7. Based on the recommended penalties and ancillary directions of the Proctorial Board, the order dated 11.8.2025 is passed imposing penalty of academic suspension for 4 semesters with fine of Rs.25000/- upon the petitioner. Copy of order dated 11.8.2025 is not enclosed along with writ petition by petitioner. However, petitioner submitted an appeal before the Review Committee of respondent University against the order dated 11.8.2025 raising the grounds as mentioned therein. The Review Committee considered the grounds as pleaded in appeal alongwith complaint submitted by Chief Warden, report and penalty recommended to be imposed by Campus Proctorial Board, order dated 11.8.2025 and upon consultation with the Competent Authority, vide order dated 9.9.2025 recommended modifying the order dated 11.8.2025. Relevant portion of order dated 9.9.2025 reads thus:- 8 “1. Academic suspension of two years (Four semesters) to one year (Two semester) which will be effective from 28.04.2025 to June, 2026. 2. To uphold the fine amount and to be paid in the timeline stipulated by the University administration. 3. To complete the backlog of missed two exams/other exams including CIA/Mid-Terms of the first two years by way of ‘Attendance Back’ to be promoted to third year. 4. On successful completion, to be permitted to join the original batch to avoid delay in completion of studies. 5. An affidavit of apology and assurance of adhering to all disciplinary rules of the University separately from the student and the parents prior to joining the campus.” 8. Perusal of extracted portion of the recommendation made by the Review Committee in an appeal preferred by petitioner, would show that academic suspension of two years (4 semesters) is modified and reduced to one year (2 semesters) and made it effective from 28.4.2025. Fine amount has been maintained. However, an opportunity is given to complete backlog of missed two exams/other exams including CIA/Mid- Terms of the first two years by way of ‘Attendance Back’ to be promoted to third year and upon completion of backlog exams, to be permitted to join the original batch to avoid delay in completion of studies. The Review Committee in its decision, 9 Annexure P-1, has taken into consideration that career of petitioner be not spoiled due to afore discussed act and protected his interest by permitting him to clear backlog exams and granted benefit of attendance back. 9. So far as submission of learned counsel for petitioner that penalty recommended and imposed upon petitioner ought to be under Category II (c) of the Rules, is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of case, looking to nature of articles seized from room of petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, such a submission is not acceptable. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner that penalty prescribed under Category III (a) would be attracted only when articles, as referred therein, including other prohibited substances, are for the purpose of distribution or selling, is also not acceptable. Prohibited acts as prescribed under Category III (a) is extracted below:- “Category III- (a) Storing and/or distribution and/or selling of alcohol, tobacco, pan masala, cigarettes, beedi, cigar, or any other prohibited substances, and abetting any such activities.” 10. A bare reading of above language used in Category III (a) would show that it also includes storing of articles and prohibited substances as mentioned therein. As per report submitted by the Chief Warden of Hostel, petitioner has stored 10 articles as mentioned in report including prohibited substances. Hence, considering the prohibited acts of the petitioner, which falls within Category III (a), I do not find any error on the part of the Proctorial Board or Review Committee in imposing penalty of academic suspension. 11. In case of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “12. We would also like to observe that, in a matter touching either discipline or the administration of the internal affairs of a University, courts should be most reluctant to interfere. They should refuse to grant an injunction unless a fairly good prima facie case is made out for interference with the internal affairs of an educational institution.” 12. In case of Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “15.The turn of events, given the lapse of time, did not form a legal basis for interdicting completion of the inquiry against Craig MacLeod. While the High Court may have intended to bring a quietus to the entire episode, it should have kept in mind that maintenance of discipline in the University is equally important for a conducive academic environment and that the larger interests of academic community are more central than the individual interests of a student. In Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya v. Rajkishore Tripathi9 it was observed that in matters of discipline or administration 11 of the internal affairs of a university, courts should be most reluctant to interfere 13. In the above two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that in the matters touching either discipline or administration of internal affairs of the University, the Courts should be most reluctant to interfere. 14. As regards imposition of monetary penalty, the minimum monetary penalty for commission of acts prohibited under Category-III (a) of the Rules is Rs.10,000/- and a maximum penalty is fixed at Rs.25,000/. Thus, the Board as also Review Committee has discretion to impose monetary penalty ranging from Rs.10,000/- to 25,000/-. In case at hand, maximum monetary penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on petitioner. Petitioner is a mere student, he is having no source of income and totally dependent on his parents and as such, liability to pay amount of monetary penalty would be upon parents of petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that imposition of minimum monetary penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner would serve the purpose. 15. Considering the entirety of the facts of case, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties as also documents enclosed along writ petition and further considering the above quoted decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent University, except as discussed in Para-14. 12 16. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order suspending the petitioner for one year (two semesters) under Category III (a) of the Rules and imposing ancillary directions are maintained. However, monetary penalty of Rs.25,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-