Delhi High Court - Orders
Shreya Tuli vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 14 January, 2019
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8619/2018
SHREYA TULI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi and
Ms. Kanika Jain, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Swetank Shantanu and
Mr. Pratap Shanker, Advs. for
R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 14.01.2019 In this matter, arguments of both sides have been heard at length.
This is a case in which the petitioner has been permanently expelled from the NIFT on the ground that she had lied about her graduation project and had created two fake e-mail IDs.
The charge is undoubtedly serious, and the scope of judicial interference, therewith, is, on the face of it, extremely limited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that no opportunity of hearing preceded issuance either of the order dated 4th May, 2018, whereby his client was permanently expelled from the NIFT, or the subsequent order dated 19th July, 2018, whereby the appeal, preferred by her against such expulsion, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in the NIFT. He also draws my attention to Clause D.5.2 of the Rules and Regulations applicable to the NIFT which reads thus :
"D.5.2 PENALTIES FOR MAJOR
DISCIPLINARY
VIOLATION:
Where the violation is considered to be major by the Competent Authority the following penalties may be imposed For the major disciplinary violations:
a) Suspension / debarment from the Institute where the student will be declared 'persona-non-grata' and will be debarred from entering the premises, facilities and from attending the classes.
b) Permanent expulsion from the institute
c) Any other course of action which may be reasonable in the circumstances"
Clearly, therefore, even cases of major misconduct may be punished by any of the afore-extracted three punishments, contained in clause D.5.2.
In this view of the matter, I put it to learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, inter alia, so that she could try and persuade the respondents to reduce the punishment imposed on her. (Needless to say, this observation should not be treated in any manner as an imprimatur or as an expression of opinion regarding the punishment which has already been imposed.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits, that, as per his instructions, possibly the petitioner had been heard. He, however, seeks a short adjournment in order to enable him to check up the records and to ascertain the actual position.
For the said reason, renotify as part-heard for disposal at the end of the board on 25th January, 2019.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 14, 2019/kr