This High Court dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order against a student. The bench rejected arguments of laches and absence of enquiry, holding instead that an alternative statutory remedy (appeal to the Executive Council) existed.
Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30353 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mohammad Zoraiz Respondent :- Aligarh Muslim University And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lihazur Rahman Khan,Araf Khan Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Shashank Shekhar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel.
Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh has raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of statutory remedy being available for filing an appeal before the Executive Council as the order dated 15.11.2017 was passed by the Vice Chancellor, in exercise of power under AMU Students' Conduct & Discipline Rule 1985, and the University Statutes.
Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh also says that this Writ Petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches as the petitioner seeks to challenge an order that is about almost one year old.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has argued that statutory remedy, if any, available to the petitioner cannot be a hard and fast rule for rejection of writ petition where Principles of Natural Justice have been violated by the respondents. He has pointed out the judgment of this Court dated 19.08.2017 in Writ C No. 36818 of 2017 Mohammad Zoraiz vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Anr. This Court had set aside the earlier order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 25.06.2016 expelling the petitioner and had given the liberty to the University to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
The learned Senior Counsel has read out the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 which is as follows:
.."Upon furnishing of certified copy of the order, the Registrar of University shall serve the charge memo upon the petitioner specifying therein the place and date of enquiry. Thereafter the University shall proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law and endeavour to complete the enquiry, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of issuance of charge memo. It is made clear that till completion of the enquiry, the petitioner shall remain suspended from the rolls of the University and shall not be entitled to enter the University premises except for the purpose of serving this order as directed herein above or to participate in the enquiry as per the information provided to him by the University."
It has been submitted by Sri Ashok Khare that no enquiry was conducted at all as this Court had specifically issued a direction to the Registrar of the University to indicate the place and date of enquiry and then to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the enquiry that was expected Court could be undertaken by the University only in accordance with AMU Students' Conduct & Discipline Rules 1985.
From a perusal of the order impugned it appears that as per the direction of High Court, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 11.10.2017 asking him to reply to the charges within a period of 15 days. The petitioner replied to the chargesheet on 25.10.2017. His reply was not found satisfactory and accordingly the Discipline Committee meeting was scheduled, issuing notice to him to be present in person in accordance with Rule 6 (i) read with Rule of AMU Students' Conduct and Discipline Rule 1985.
The Discipline Committee after going through all the papers and materials available on record (181 pages), heard the petitioner in person for almost one and half hour and also took into account the written submissions (total pages 199) submitted by the petitioner. The Committee had also gone through the CCTV camera footage provided by the Proctor's Office and the the CD provided by the petitioner.
The petitioner is not a Government servant but only a student of the University. He is not protected by the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules and therefore, the directions of this Court as given in the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 can be read only in the context of the Rules of 1985. The petitioner has not challenged the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1985 for Conduct of disciplinary action against students.
Moreover, Sri Ashok Khare has also argued that laches in approaching this Court can only be seen where third party rights are affected and not where individual causes of action like that of the petitioner are pleaded before this Court. This Court does not agree with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, it has been repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even in individual only causes of action, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where the petitioner has slept over his rights. This writ petition however is not being dismissed for unexplained laches. It is being dismissed because Statutory remedy is available of filing an appeal before the Executive Council.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 A. Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the disciplinary order is maintainable when a statutory remedy via appeal to the Executive Council is available.
Whether the delay in approaching the court amounts to laches barring the writ jurisdiction.
Whether an enquiry conducted under AMU Students' Conduct & Discipline Rule 1985 violated Principles of Natural Justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammad Zoraiz vs. Aligarh Muslim UniversityReferred¶8
Writ C No. 36818 of 2017 Mohammad Zoraiz vs. Aligarh Muslim University
Mohammad Zoraiz
Aligarh Muslim University
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
