The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that even in cases of serious academic misconduct, procedural fairness is non-negotiable. The Court set aside the expulsion of two medical students after finding that the Vice Chancellor failed to provide them with critical documents and an opportunity to respond before imposing the harshest penalty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Khushi Sehrawat and Vidhi Rana, were pursuing their M.B.B.S. degrees at Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak. They were accused of involvement in a large-scale examination malpractice scandal involving substitution of answer sheets and use of illicitly obtained blank papers. Following an investigation, both were expelled from the University with immediate effect on 02.02.2026, and all their examination results in the implicated subjects were cancelled. They were also barred from re-admission.
Key Facts
- A Preliminary Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 13.02.2025, identifying 30 students, including the petitioners, with irregularities in answer sheets.
- Key irregularities included mismatched serial numbers of answer books, evidence of substitution or interchange of answer sheets, and a list of 46 missing blank answer sheets.
- A Board of Discipline was constituted on 14.02.2025 under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance on Maintenance of Discipline among Students.
- A Government-approved Handwriting Expert submitted a report on 28.07.2025, concluding that the disputed handwriting on the petitioners’ answer sheets did not match their admitted specimens.
- A show cause notice dated 03.10.2025 was issued to the petitioners under Clause 3(1)(s) and Clause 4(f) of the Ordinance.
- The petitioners submitted written replies and appeared before the Board of Discipline for personal hearing.
- The Board of Discipline recommended expulsion on 31.01.2026.
- The Vice Chancellor passed the expulsion order on 02.02.2026 without providing the petitioners copies of the Board’s recommendations or the Handwriting Expert’s report.
- The petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to file objections to these documents prior to the final order.
Procedural History
- 13.02.2025: Preliminary Inquiry Committee submits report identifying 30 students with irregularities.
- 28.07.2025: Handwriting Expert submits report concluding disputed handwriting does not match petitioners’ specimens.
- 03.10.2025: Show cause notice issued to petitioners.
- 31.01.2026: Board of Discipline recommends expulsion.
- 02.02.2026: Vice Chancellor passes expulsion order without disclosing Board recommendations or expert report.
- 15.02.2026: Writ petitions filed before the High Court.
- 20.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: The expulsion order was passed without affording them an opportunity to examine the Board’s recommendations or the Handwriting Expert’s report. They were denied a meaningful chance to contest the evidence or argue proportionality of punishment. This violated the principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent-University: The disciplinary process followed the Ordinance strictly. The petitioners had been heard by the Board of Discipline, had submitted written replies, and the Vice Chancellor acted on duly constituted recommendations. The gravity of the misconduct justified the penalty.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the expulsion order dated 02.02.2026, restoration of their academic status, and directions for a fresh, fair hearing in compliance with natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Vice Chancellor, in imposing the penalty of expulsion, was required under the principles of natural justice to provide the student with copies of the Board of Discipline’s recommendations and the Handwriting Expert’s report before passing the final order, and to afford an opportunity to respond to them.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, are not optional even in disciplinary proceedings involving serious misconduct. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India held that fairness is inherent in Article 14. The petitioners were not given access to the very documents upon which the Board based its recommendation and the Vice Chancellor relied for final action. Without these, they could not meaningfully contest the findings or argue against the disproportionality of expulsion. The Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor emphasized that denial of access to material evidence renders proceedings void.
For the Respondent
The University’s counsel contended that the petitioners had already been heard by the Board of Discipline, had submitted written replies, and the entire process was transparent. The Vice Chancellor, acting as the final authority, was entitled to rely on the Board’s recommendations without re-hearing the matter. The Ordinance did not mandate disclosure of internal recommendations to the student prior to the final order. The seriousness of the scam, involving forged answer sheets and criminal prosecution, warranted swift and decisive action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations and the need for strict disciplinary action in academic institutions. However, it emphasized that procedural fairness is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative. The Board of Discipline, though duly constituted and procedurally compliant, had submitted recommendations and a Handwriting Expert’s report that formed the factual and evidentiary basis for the penalty. The Vice Chancellor, acting under Clause 4(f) of the Ordinance, was the final decision-maker. The Court held that the right to be heard extends to the final decision-maker, not merely the inquiry body.
"The petitioner ought to have been supplied with copies of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and report of the Handwriting Expert, and also afforded an opportunity to submit objections thereto, followed by a personal hearing, prior to the passing of any adverse order."
The Court distinguished this from mere procedural compliance under the Ordinance. Even if the process was followed mechanically, the failure to disclose the evidentiary foundation to the affected party before final action rendered the order legally unsustainable. The Court cited A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India to underscore that natural justice applies to all administrative decisions affecting rights. The University’s reliance on the Board’s recommendation did not absolve the Vice Chancellor of the duty to ensure the student had a fair chance to respond to the evidence.
The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioners had been heard earlier by the Board. The Board was an inquiry body; the final decision rested with the Vice Chancellor, who was under an independent duty to ensure fairness.
The Verdict
The impugned expulsion order dated 02.02.2026 is set aside. The petitioners shall appear before the Vice Chancellor on 27.03.2026 at 11:00 a.m. to receive complete copies of the Board of Discipline’s recommendations and the Handwriting Expert’s report, with proper acknowledgment. The petitioners shall file written objections within seven days of receipt. The Vice Chancellor shall then afford them a personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. All observations are confined to procedural fairness and do not prejudge the merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure of Evidentiary Material Is Mandatory Before Final Adverse Orders
- Practitioners must now argue that any document forming the basis of a final disciplinary decision - including expert reports, inquiry committee findings, or internal recommendations - must be disclosed to the affected party before the final order.
- Institutions cannot rely on internal deliberations as a shield against natural justice obligations.
Final Decision-Makers Cannot Delegate Fairness
- Even if a committee conducts a hearing, the final authority must independently ensure the affected person has access to all material relied upon.
- The mere fact that a student was heard by an inquiry body does not satisfy the requirement of a fair hearing before the final decision-maker.
Proportionality Must Be Argued After Disclosure
- Students must be given a clear opportunity to argue that the proposed penalty (e.g., expulsion) is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
- Institutions must record reasons for rejecting such arguments, especially when expert evidence is involved.
Institutional Discipline Must Align with Constitutional Norms
- Universities are public authorities bound by Article 14 and 21.
- Expulsion is a severe penalty affecting livelihood and dignity; procedural safeguards are not optional.
When Delay Defeats Remedy
- The Court’s directive for a fresh hearing within a fixed timeline (7 days for objections, 27.03.2026 for appearance) sets a precedent for timely redressal in academic disciplinary matters.
- Delays in providing documents or scheduling hearings may now be challenged as violations of the right to a speedy remedy.
