Iilm, Lodhi Road Delhi Vs Samarveer Singh & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Iilm, Lodhi Road Delhi Vs Samarveer Singh & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Single Judge's interim order permitting the respondent to attend classes and access his official e-mail remains operative.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's interim order dated 14.10.2025 directing the appellant-Institute to allow the respondent to attend classes and to activate his official e-mail ID. +1 more

Court's answer

As the sanction was unsupported by the appellant's own policy, the Division Bench found no good reason to interfere with the Single Judge's interim order and dismissed the appeal, leaving the interim order undisturbed.

Ratio / Principle

Under the appellant's vaping policy, immediate rustication may follow only a third offence; the respondent was admittedly not being punished for a third offence, and the appellant itself admitted that the vaping policy does not include cheating.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-Court appeal (LPA 723/2025) by IILM, Lodhi Road, Delhi against a learned Single Judge's interim order dated 14.10.2025 in respondent Samarveer Singh's writ petition W.P.(C) No.14207/2025, whereby the appellant-Institute was directed to allow the respondent to attend classes and his official e-mail ID was directed to be activated. Examining the appellant's vaping policy - first offence: written warning, monetary penalty of Rs.5,000/- and seven working days' suspension along with written apology; second offence: fine of Rs.10,000/- and fifteen days' suspension; immediate rustication reserved only for a third offence - the Division Bench noted that the instant case was admittedly not one of punishment for a third offence, and that it had been admitted by the appellant that the vaping policy does not include cheating. Finding no good reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J) dismissed the appeal on 01.12.2025 and disposed of the pending CM applications.

$~20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- LPA 723/2025, CM APPL. 75217/2025, CM APPL. 75218/2025 & CM APPL. 75219/2025

IILM, LODHI ROAD DELHI .....Appellant Through: Ms. Srishty Kaul and Ms. Navita, Advocates.

versus

SAMARVEER SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akhil Suri, Mr. Ritik Malik and Mr. Udit Thukran, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R % 01.12.2025

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This intra-Court appeal takes an exception to an interim order dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by respondent, namely W.P.(C) No.14207/2025, whereby the appellant-Institute has been directed to allow the respondent to attend the classes and his official e-mail ID has also been directed to be activated.

The reason given by the learned Single Judge is that in terms of the vaping policy of the appellant, in case of the first offence, the punishment of written warning is to be inflicted followed by a monetary penalty of Rs.5,000/and suspension for a period of seven working days along with a written apology. For the second offence, the punishment that could be awarded is a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a suspension for fifteen days. The vaping policy further prescribes that it is only the third offence, which may entail immediate rustication from the college.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/12/2025 at 11:38:57

Learned counsel for the appellant could not bring on record any material to infer that the instant case is a case of the third offence. She has submitted that in the first offence, the respondent was caught cheating, however on tendering the apology, no further action was taken and therefore, it is the second offence. However, as per the policy, it is only the third offence which may lead to immediate rustication from the college. Admittedly, the instant case is not where the respondent has been punished for the third offence. It is also to be noticed that it has rather been admitted by the appellant that the vaping policy does not include cheating.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly, hereby dismissed.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

DECEMBER 1, 2025 Sumit

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/12/2025 at 11:38:57