Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned Memorandum dated 10.03.2023 passed by the respondent-University, whereby, the petitioner has been debarred from taking any University/College/Departmental examination for a period of one year.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the impugned order does not record any reason, much less sufficient reasons for debarring the petitioner for a period of one year. He states that the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that on 27.01.2023, there was a protest organised by few students at the Faculty of Arts, (Main Campus), University of Delhi and during this protest, allegedly, a banned BBC documentary was screened for public viewing. However, at the relevant time, neither was the petitioner present at the protest site, nor did he facilitated/participated in the screening in any manner.
3. The submissions put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of the petitioner being part of screening of the banned documentary, no action should have been taken against him. In any case, if the respondent was of the view that the petitioner in any manner had participated in screening of the banned documentary, an adequate opportunity of hearing ought to have been extended to him.
4. The submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are strongly opposed by learned Attorney General who states that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. Learned Attorney General, while taking this court through the response dated 20.02.2023 of the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice given by the University states that the stand taken by the petitioner in his response dated 20.02.2023 is contradictory to his own statement which he has made before the media personnel, regarding his presence at the time of screening of the BBC documentary. Learned Attorney General also states that the disciplinary authority had conducted an inquiry into the matter and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner appeared before the disciplinary authority. He also states that once the disciplinary authority heard the petitioner and Show Cause Notice was given to him, no further opportunity is necessary under the facts of the present case. He also states that when the petitioner admitted before the media personnel that he was present in the campus, consequently, no further opportunity is necessary. He has read over the transcription of video clips of the petitioner's press statement in addition to the response to the Show Cause Notice submitted by him.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Dr. Ashok K. Mittal v. University of Delhi. MANU/DE/1082/1995
6. The aforesaid contentions are contradicted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submissions. He states that if the impugned order is perused, the same only records that the petitioner allegedly participated in the screening of the banned BBC documentary on 27.01.2023 at 4:00 p.m. in front of Gate No. 4, Faculty of Arts (Opposite Conference Centre), University of Delhi and hence, unless the respondents are able to satisfy or record a categorical finding that the petitioner's presence was explicitly noted at 4:00 p.m. on 27.01.2023, no action can be taken against him. He also states that if the Show Cause Notice dated 16.02.2023 is perused, the same would indicate that a general statement was made therein that the petitioner was involved ........