Vikrant Singh Vs the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010105572021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3485/2021

¶5

VIKRANT SINGH

¶6

S/O. SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH, R/O. KARAHIYA BAZAR, BEERBHANPUR, RAIBARELI, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN-229124.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI AND 3 ORS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, AMINGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781039. 2:THE SENATE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781039. 3:THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781039. 4:THE STUDENT/S DICIPLINARY COMMITTEE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REP. BY THE DEAN OF STUDENT/S AFFAIRS AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781039

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, MR I CHAKMA,MR SAURADEEP DEY

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IIT, MS. D D BARMAN,MR A B DEY,MR. S SUTRADHAR

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

06.03.2025

¶15

1 . Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.B. Dey, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶16

2 . The petitioner has put to challenge the letter dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Registrar & Secretary, Senate, by which the petitioner has been terminated from the studentship of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati, with immediate effect.

¶17

3 . The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had been given a letter dated 08.04.2021 issued by the Joint Registrar, Students’ Affairs, IIT, Guwahati, informing him that the IIT, Guwahati, had received several complaints against the petitioner, which were deliberated upon by the Students’ Disciplinary Committee (SDC) in several meetings. As the SDC found that the petitioner had been defaming the IIT, Guwahati and it’s functionaries, which was in violation of Clause 3.1.10(c) of the Ordinance on Code and Conduct of the Students of the IIT, Guwahati, the petitioner was asked to present his case before the SDC on 12.04.2021 or 13.04.2021. The petitioner thereafter submitted a reply dated 09.04.2021 to the letter dated 08.04.2021 issued by the Joint Registrar, Students’ Affairs, IIT, Guwahati, stating that he had not been made aware of the specific allegation for the proposed hearing to be held and what was to be defended/explained. Further, the petitioner asked to be furnished with all materials, based upon which the respondent authorities wanted to initiate a

¶18

Page No.# 3/7

¶19

disciplinary proceeding against him. The petitioner then went on to state that he had raised issues regarding several false complaints having been attributed to him.

¶20

4 . Without replying to the petitioner’s communication/reply dated 09.04.2021, the impugned letter dated 25.06.2021 was issued, terminating the petitioner’s studentship from IIT, Guwahati.

¶21

5 . The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has not been given a proper opportunity of hearing or defending himself, prior to the termination of the petitioner’s studentship from the IIT, Guwahati.

¶22

6 . Mr. A.B. Dey, learned counsel for all the respondents submits that the petitioner has been stirring up controversies and trouble in the IIT, Guwahati, since the time he joined the IIT, Guwahati. His actions were highly disruptive to the academic environment and the petitioner has not made any attempt to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the IIT, Guwahati.

¶23

7 . I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

8 . As can be seen from the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the petitioner had been asked to appear before the SDC on 12.04.2021 or 13.04.2021, with regard to several complaints that had been made against the petitioner. As the petitioner had not been given copies of the complaints, the petitioner had asked for copies of the complaints, vide letter

¶25

Page No.# 4/7

¶26

dated 09.04.2021, to enable him to know the substance of the allegations made against him, so as to enable him to defend himself and give explanations in respect of those complaints. However, the respondents did not give the petitioner copies of the alleged complaints made against the petitioner and neither did they inform the petitioner the exact nature of the complaints made against the petitioner. The respondents, vide the impugned letter dated 25.06.2021, terminated the petitioner from studentship of the IIT, Guwahati without giving any proper reasons for the same.

¶27

9 . The impugned letter dated 25.06.2021 shows that the termination of the studentship of the petitioner had been made based on the meeting minutes of the SDC held on 12.04.2021 and the 154^th Resolution passed by the Senate held on 20.04.2021. The recommendation of the SDC and the Senate Resolution was thereafter considered by the Board of Governors in it’s meeting held on 22.04.2021 and the recommendation for termination of the petitioner’s studentship was approved.

¶28

10 . The contents of the impugned letter dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Joint Registrar, Students’ Affairs, IIT, Guwahati is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows :

¶29

"Sub: Termination of studentship of Mr. Vikrant Singh - reg

¶30

Ref: 1) (BOG) Resolutions, R_106BOG/33/2021 held on 22.04.2021 2) Senate resolutions, R. 154/10/2021 held on 20.04.2021 3) Recommendations of the SDC meetings

¶31

Page No.# 5/7

¶32

Dear Mr. Singh,

¶33

This has reference to the subject mentioned above and with regard to your indulgence in defamation of the Institute functionaries through numerous social media posts. Your defamatory social media posts, offensive letters / emails to various Institute functionaries, as well as to the Students' Disciplinary Committee (SDC) are highly disruptive to the academic environment of the Institute. You have not complied with the rules and regulations of the Institute as well as violated clause 3.1.10(c) the Ordinance on Code and Conduct of Students. You have committed an offence of the highest order in an academic Institute, and hence your behavior is considered unpardonable. Minutes of SDC and Ordinance on Code and Conduct of Students are enclosed herewith for details of violation.

¶34

Pursuant upon the decision of 154^th (R. 154/10/2021) meeting of the Senate held on 20th April 2021 and as per decisions and acceptance of the 106^th meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) Resolutions, R_106BOG/33/2021 held on 22.04.2021 of the Institute, you are hereby informed that you are terminated from studentship of this Institute with immediate effect. Minutes of BOG and Senate are enclosed herewith regarding your termination."

¶35

11 . A perusal of the above impugned letter and other annexures in the pleadings of the parties, clearly goes to show that neither was the petitioner told the exact nature of the complaints that had been made against him nor was he given a copy of the same. The copy of the recommendation of the SDC meeting made on 12.04.2021 was also not provided to the petitioner. The copy of the SDC recommendation and/or the Senate Resolution was not given to the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to make any explanation against anything adverse that had been recorded/made against him therein.

¶36

Page No.# 6/7

¶37

12 . The above facts thus show that no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner, with respect to the recommendation and decision of the authorities, to terminate the studentship of the petitioner.

¶38

13 . In the case of Basudev Dutta vs. State of West Bengal & Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3616, the Supreme Court has held that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed. If any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee. It is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished. The failure to furnish the documents referred and relied in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Before taking any adverse decision, the aggrieved person must be given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Supreme Court has, in the above case, held that as the order of termination had been passed without following the principles of natural justice, the same was arbitrary, illegal and as such not sustainable.

¶39

14 . In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Rajit Singh , reported in (2022) 15 SCC 254, the Supreme Court has referred to another it’s judgment has observed that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, it must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. In the present case, the respondents may consider if they want to initiate a fresh inquiry against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner would have to be informed

¶40

Page No.# 7/7

¶41

of the specific complaints made against him, so as to enable the petitioner to give a proper reply to the specific allegations made against him. Be that as it may, the manner in which the petitioner’s studentship has been terminated is in violation of the principles of natural justice. No proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner, to give his side of the story. As such, the impugned letter dated 25.06.2021 is patently arbitrary.

¶42

15 . In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned letter dated 25.06.2021 terminating the studentship of the petitioner from the IIT, Guwahati being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice is hereby set aside. The respondents shall issue necessary orders to enable the petitioner to complete his Ph.D Course. If the respondents want to re-start the inquiry afresh, they may do so, provided that principles of natural justice are followed and as per due process of law. A Note of caution is given to the petitioner to behave and act within the Rules, Regulations of the IIT and the Ordinance on Code and Conduct of students. The petitioner shall also submit an Undertaking to the Registrar of the IIT, Guwahati, stating that he will not cause any disturbance to the academic atmosphere of the IIT, Guwahati.

¶43

16 . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Vikrant Singh v. the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Singh v. the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramisha Begum and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

MD Mohibul Hoque Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gobin Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nilendu Roy Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Kanika Bharali Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Vikrant Singh Vs the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and 3 Ors.