Introduction:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered an important ruling emphasizing that disciplinary actions taken by educational institutions must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. In the case titled Munish v. State of Haryana and Others, the Court examined the legality of the expulsion of an MBBS student from Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences in connection with an alleged examination malpractice scandal. The matter was decided by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari who closely scrutinized the process adopted by the university authorities before imposing the severe penalty of expulsion. The petitioner, a student belonging to the 2020 batch of the MBBS program, approached the High Court challenging the order dated February 2, 2026 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the university. The impugned order directed the immediate expulsion of the student and cancellation of his examination results in subjects that were allegedly tainted by malpractice. In addition to this, the university authorities also issued a subsequent direction ordering the student to vacate the college as well as the hostel premises. The disciplinary action arose out of an alleged large-scale examination scam involving manipulation of answer sheets and irregularities in the evaluation process of MBBS examinations. The petitioner contended that the punishment imposed on him was not only disproportionate but also procedurally flawed as the Vice Chancellor passed the order without granting him a personal hearing and without supplying the recommendations made by the Board of Discipline. The High Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the decision-making process followed by the university authorities complied with the requirements of fairness and due process. While examining the matter, the Court also considered the broader issue of how disciplinary proceedings in academic institutions must balance the need to maintain academic integrity with the obligation to ensure procedural fairness for students facing serious allegations.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by his counsel, strongly challenged the expulsion order on the ground that it violated the fundamental principles of natural justice. The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that the Vice Chancellor had passed the impugned order without affording him a meaningful opportunity to present his case. According to the petitioner, although the Board of Discipline conducted an inquiry and recommended the maximum penalty of expulsion, the Vice Chancellor failed to provide the petitioner with a copy of those recommendations before acting upon them. As a result, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to examine the findings and submit his objections or explanations. The petitioner argued that this omission amounted to a clear violation of the principles of audi alteram partem, which require that a person likely to be affected by an adverse decision must be given an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner further submitted that the Vice Chancellor did not grant him a personal hearing before issuing the expulsion order. Given the gravity of the allegations and the severe consequences of expulsion from a professional course such as MBBS, the petitioner contended that the authorities were under a legal obligation to ensure a fair hearing before imposing such punishment. The petitioner also questioned the reliability of the evidence allegedly linking him to the examination scam. According to him, there was no conclusive proof demonstrating that he had participated in any wrongdoing or manipulation of answer sheets. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings had relied on speculative conclusions rather than concrete evidence. The petitioner further asserted that expulsion from the university constituted the harshest possible penalty that could be imposed on a student and that such punishment was grossly disproportionate in the absence of clear evidence of misconduct. The petitioner therefore urged the High Court to set aside the impugned orders and restore his academic status. He also argued that the Court should ensure that any further action taken by the university authorities complies with the principles of fairness and due process.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, including the State authorities and the university administration, strongly defended the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the university argued that the impugned order was the result of a detailed and extensive inquiry conducted into a large-scale examination scam that had seriously compromised the integrity of the university’s examination system. According to the respondents, the matter first came to light following complaints regarding irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of MBBS examinations. In response to these complaints, the university constituted a preliminary inquiry committee to investigate the allegations. The committee conducted a thorough examination of the records and submitted a report dated February 13, 2025. This report revealed serious discrepancies in the answer sheets of 30 students, including the petitioner. The inquiry reportedly discovered that the serial numbers of certain answer books used by candidates did not match the official records maintained by the university. This mismatch suggested the possibility that answer sheets had been substituted or interchanged after the examination. The report also highlighted the disappearance of 46 blank answer sheets which were suspected to have been used in the fraudulent scheme. Based on the findings of the preliminary inquiry committee, the Vice Chancellor constituted a Board of Discipline under the university’s ordinance governing the maintenance of discipline among students. During the disciplinary proceedings, all 30 students identified in the report were summoned and examined. Out of these students, 26 stated that the handwriting appearing in the answer sheets belonged to them, while four students asserted that certain answer sheets did not contain their handwriting. In order to verify these claims, the university sought the opinion of a government-approved handwriting expert. The expert reportedly concluded that the handwriting appearing in the disputed answer sheets attributed to the petitioner did not match the admitted specimen handwriting provided by him. Based on these findings, the Board of Discipline issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking why disciplinary action including expulsion should not be taken against him. After considering the available material, the Board of Discipline recommended that the maximum penalty of expulsion be imposed. The Vice Chancellor subsequently accepted this recommendation and issued the impugned order expelling the petitioner from the university. The respondents also informed the Court that a criminal case had been registered in connection with the alleged examination scam through FIR No. 25 dated February 15, 2025. The FIR reportedly named a clerical staff member and 24 students, including the petitioner, as accused persons in the alleged fraud. The respondents therefore argued that the disciplinary action was justified in light of the serious allegations and the evidence collected during the inquiry. They urged the Court not to interfere with the university’s decision as it was necessary to maintain the integrity and credibility of the examination system.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the submissions made by both sides and reviewing the record of the disciplinary proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a detailed judgment focusing on the issue of procedural fairness. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed that the proceedings conducted by the Board of Discipline appeared to have been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant university ordinance. However, the Court emphasized that the legality of the final order passed by the Vice Chancellor had to be evaluated independently to determine whether it complied with the principles of natural justice. Upon a careful review of the record, the Court found that the Vice Chancellor had issued the expulsion order solely on the basis of the recommendations made by the Board of Discipline. Crucially, the Court noted that these recommendations had not been supplied to the petitioner before the order was passed. As a result, the petitioner had no opportunity to examine the reasoning adopted by the Board of Discipline or to submit objections against its findings. Justice Tiwari held that this omission constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that whenever an authority proposes to take an adverse decision affecting the rights or interests of an individual, it must provide the concerned person with the material on which the decision is based and give them an opportunity to respond. The Court also observed that the Vice Chancellor had not granted the petitioner a personal hearing before passing the expulsion order. According to the Court, such an opportunity was particularly necessary in a case involving serious allegations and severe consequences such as expulsion from a professional course. The Court further clarified that the gravity of the allegations could not be used as a justification for bypassing procedural safeguards. Even in cases involving suspected academic fraud, the authorities must ensure that disciplinary proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the principles of fairness and due process. Having reached these conclusions, the Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Vice Chancellor could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Court set aside the expulsion order dated February 2, 2026 as well as the subsequent direction requiring the petitioner to vacate the college and hostel premises. At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner. The judgment was limited to the issue of whether the disciplinary action had complied with the principles of natural justice. In order to ensure that the matter is decided fairly, the Court directed the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the case after following the proper procedure. The Court ordered that the recommendations of the Board of Discipline must be supplied to the petitioner. After receiving these recommendations, the petitioner would be given seven days to submit his objections and responses. The Vice Chancellor was also directed to grant the petitioner a personal hearing before taking a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court further directed the petitioner to appear before the Vice Chancellor on March 5, 2026 for the purpose of the reconsideration proceedings. Through these directions, the Court sought to ensure that the disciplinary process is conducted in a transparent and fair manner while also allowing the university authorities to address the allegations of examination malpractice.