Natural Justice Violated: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Expulsion Of MBBS Student In Exam Scam Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside an order expelling an MBBS student from Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences in connection with an alleged examination scam, holding that the punishment was imposed without complying with the principles of natural justice.
In doing so, the Court directed the university's Vice Chancellor to reconsider the matter after supplying the student with the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and granting him an opportunity of personal hearing.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "upon a studied survey of the record, this Court is of the view that although the proceedings before the Board of Discipline were conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Ordinance, the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Vice Chancellor, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and without furnishing a copy of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline, proceeded to pass the impugned order solely on the basis of the record and the recommendations placed before him."
The petitioner, an MBBS student from the 2020 batch, had approached the Court challenging the order dated February 2, 2026 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the university, which expelled him with immediate effect and cancelled his examination results in the subjects allegedly tainted by malpractice.
He also challenged a subsequent order directing him to vacate the college and hostel premises.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the Vice Chancellor neither granted the petitioner a personal hearing nor supplied him with the recommendations of the Board of Discipline before imposing the penalty.
The petitioner further argued that there was no reliable evidence establishing his involvement in the alleged misconduct and that expulsion — being the harshest penalty — was grossly disproportionate.
University Defends Action
Senior counsel appearing for the university opposed the plea and submitted that the disciplinary action followed a detailed inquiry into a large-scale examination scam.
It was submitted that the matter first came to light after a complaint regarding irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of MBBS examinations. A preliminary inquiry committee was constituted, which in its report dated February 13, 2025 flagged serious discrepancies in the answer sheets of 30 students, including the petitioner.
The inquiry reportedly found a mismatch between the serial numbers of answer books used by candidates and official records, indications of substitution or interchange of answer sheets, and a list of 46 missing blank answer sheets suspected to have been used in the scam.
Based on this report, the Vice Chancellor constituted a Board of Discipline under the university's Ordinance on Maintenance of Discipline among Students.
During the inquiry, all 30 students were summoned. While 26 students claimed that the handwriting in the answer sheets belonged to them, four students stated that certain answer sheets did not contain their handwriting.
A government-approved handwriting expert later opined that the handwriting in the disputed answer sheets attributed to the petitioner did not match his admitted specimen handwriting.
Following this, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking why the penalty of expulsion should not be imposed. The Board of Discipline ultimately recommended the maximum penalty, which the Vice Chancellor accepted.
The university also pointed out that a criminal case had been registered in connection with the alleged scam through FIR No. 25 dated February 15, 2025 against a clerical staff member and 24 students, including the petitioner.
Court Finds Violation of Natural Justice
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the proceedings before the Board of Discipline were conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant ordinance. However, the Court held that the final order passed by the Vice Chancellor was legally unsustainable due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Court observed that the Vice Chancellor passed the expulsion order solely on the basis of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline without supplying a copy of those recommendations to the petitioner or granting him an opportunity to respond.
Justice Tiwari held that before passing an adverse order, the petitioner ought to have been provided with the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and given a chance to file objections and make submissions.
The Court emphasised that the seriousness of allegations cannot justify bypassing procedural safeguards.
Fresh Decision After Hearing Ordered
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to appear before the Vice Chancellor on March 5, 2026.
The Court directed that the recommendations of the Board of Discipline be supplied to the petitioner, after which he would be given seven days to file objections. The Vice Chancellor was further directed to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of compliance with the principles of natural justice and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate, and Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate
Title: MUNISH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.