HC quashes expulsion of Rohtak IIM student, slaps Rs 1L costs on institute
Rapping the Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, for affecting a student’s career through its “illegal action”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed his expulsion before imposing Rs 1 lakh costs on the establishment.
The direction by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri came on a petition by the student through counsel Priyanka Sud. The court asserted the punishment order was passed by an authority not competent or authorised. The director, too, passed the “appellate order” without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without considering the grounds taken by him in the appeal, and without even determining “whether the authority imposing the punishment was competent to pass the order”.
No repeat year
The institute is further directed to permit the petitioner to continue his studies in the normal course, without insisting on repeating the year with full fees. He would also be at liberty to make a representation to the board of governors for the restoration of the hostel facility
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Justice Puri ruled the cost would be paid by the institute within three months. The Board of Governors would, thereafter, be “at liberty to fix accountability on the officers concerned, including the director, and recover the amount from the officers concerned…”
Justice Puri observed two penalties were imposed upon him -- expulsion from the hostel and Rs 10,000 costs. Another Rs 10,000 penalty was imposed for alleged attendance malpractice. Imposing the third punishment, the student was expelled from the institute.
Referring to the third punishment order, Justice Puri asserted it was based on allegations that the petitioner stayed in the hostel in an unauthorised manner. It was also founded on the earlier two punishment orders.
“The petitioner has been expelled from the programme on the basis of three punishments, two of which were earlier and had already been implemented. The argument raised by counsel for the respondents that the expulsion was due to the cumulative effect of the earlier punishments cannot be sustained, as it clearly amounts to double jeopardy. Once the petitioner was subjected to two orders of punishment, a third punishment order could not have been imposed on the same grounds,” Justice Puri asserted.
The court added the appellate authority was the director. But the appeal was decided by the chairperson, hostel and student affairs, though he was not competent. The director “surprisingly" considered the student’s appeal as ‘mercy appeal’.
“It is not understandable as to how the director considered the appeal to be a mercy appeal, whereas there is no provision of mercy appeal …. The director reduced the punishment from expulsion to repeat of the year with full fees…,” the court asserted.
Justice Puri added the order on appeal was not a reasoned one. It did not mention how the petitioner was even liable to receive the punishment of repeating the year. “The institute is further directed to permit the petitioner to continue his studies in the normal course, without insisting on repeating the year with full fees. He would also be at liberty to make a representation to the board of governors for the restoration of the hostel facility," said Justice Puri.
