Indian Institute Of Management Rohtak And Others v. Deepam Anand Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (202+203) CM-2674-LPA-2025 CM-2675-LPA-2025 Date of Decision : August 29, 2025 Indian Institute of Management Rohtak and others .. Appellants

Versus

Deepam Anand Singh .. Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Ankita Sambyal, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-2674-LPA-2025 Present application has been filed for placing on record the Annexures R-1 to R-8.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Annexures R-1 to R-8 are taken on record.

1.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 04.11.2024 in CWP No. 18689 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, the writ petition filed by the respondent-student has been allowed. 2.

The challenge in the present appeal is that though, a bona fide action was taken but cost of Rs. 1 lac has been imposed upon the petitionerinstitution by the learned Single Judge. Further, that the respondent-student has not attended the lectures but still, he has been allowed to continue in the studies of law.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-student submits that she will not press the cost of Rs. 1 lac but submits that the respondent-student should be treated as continuing in the course of 20232028 without any obstruction and whatever the examinations, which the respondent have missed, he will appear in the same henceforth and will clear accordingly.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that had the study continued, the respondent would have been in seventh semester as of now.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6.

It may be noticed that the allegations against the respondent were not such that the same would entitle the appellants to rusticate him from the studies so as to spoil his career. The only allegation was that he was found in the hostel without entitlement.

7.

It may be noticed that nothing evident has been brought on record that while staying in the hostel, he had committed some illegalities or had violated any rule rather, the only allegation was that he was staying with his friends along with them in their room.

8.

Further, the grievance of the appellants is that 70% lectures have not been attended by the respondent and therefore, it is difficult to promote him even to the seventh semester.

9.

It may be noticed that once the rustication was held to be bad, the continuance of studies has to be deemed and by virtue of the said deeming fiction, the respondent will be in seventh semester as of now, otherwise despite holding that punishment imposed is bad, respondent will still be prejudice to lose two years of his career as though respondent was ready to study but he was prevented by the appellants. 10.

As a special case, so as to avoid any prejudice to the respondent, he will be promoted to the 7th semester and he will be allowed to appear in the examination of 4th, 5th, 6th and mid term of the 7th semester which he has not been able to appear due to the pendency of the writ petition or the Letters Patent Appeal as the case may be. 11.

In case, the respondent is able to clear the examination which he has failed to undertake due to the punishment imposed, which order has been set aside by the learned Single Judge, due action can be taken in accordance with the regulations of the institution.

12.

Before parting with the order, we request the Appellate Authority to sympathetically consider the case of the respondent, who is only

a student though, he might have committed certain mistakes while studying in the institution.

13.

The cost of Rs.1 lac imposed by the learned Single Judge, stands waived off keeping in view the fact that the same has been waived off by the learned counsel for the respondent.

14.

The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. 15.

Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE August 29, 2025 (VIKAS SURI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No