Chandigarh: Observing that the medical university did not follow the principles of natural justice and failed to provide the student an opportunity to be heard, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the expulsion of an MBBS student from Pt BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, who had been accused of involvement in the examination malpractice scam.The petitioner argued that the expulsion order was passed without giving him a fair opportunity to defend himself. He claimed that he was neither provided with a copy of the Board of Discipline’s recommendations nor granted a personal hearing before the Vice Chancellor issued the order. Calling the action a violation of the principles of natural justice, he approached the court seeking to set aside the expulsion order, the cancellation of his exam results, and the direction asking him to vacate the college hostel.While passing the judgment, Single Bench Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed, “In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought to have been supplied with a copy of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and afforded an opportunity to submit his objections thereto, followed by a personal hearing, prior to the passing of any adverse order. The failure to do so renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.”The Writ Petition was filed by a student from the 2020 MBBS batch challenging the order dated February 2, 2026, passed by the university’s Vice Chancellor. Acting on the recommendations of the Board of Discipline, the university had expelled the student with immediate effect and cancelled his MBBS examination results in the subjects allegedly affected by malpractice. A subsequent order dated February 3, 2026 also directed him to leave the college campus and vacate the hostel.The petitioner argued that the order was passed without giving him a fair opportunity to defend himself. According to his counsel, the Vice Chancellor did not grant him a personal hearing and also did not provide him with a copy of the recommendations made by the Board of Discipline. Because of this, the student was unable to submit a proper response before the punishment was imposed.The petitioner further argued that there was no reliable or legally sustainable evidence proving his involvement in the alleged misconduct. His counsel also contended that expulsion is the most severe punishment and was disproportionate to the allegations.However, the university opposed the petition, contending that a large-scale examination scam had surfaced and was being inquired into in a transparent and unbiased manner. It was submitted that a Fact Finding Inquiry Committee was initially constituted, and based on its detailed report, a Board of Discipline was subsequently constituted in terms of Clause 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance on Maintenance of Discipline among Students (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”). The counsel stated that the Board of Discipline allowed the petitioner and other concerned students to file written responses as well as to avail personal hearings, and only thereafter, the recommendation was made, which constituted the bedrock for imposition of the penalty of expulsion under Clause 4 of the Ordinance.It also submitted that the instant writ petition was filed with the oblique motive of obstructing the ongoing criminal prosecution arising out of FIR No.25 dated 15.02.2025, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7A and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against one Roshan Lal, clerical staff, and 24 students (including the petitioner).Court’s ObservationAfter examining the legality of the impugned order, the court noted that the inquiry report highlighted grave irregularities in the answer sheets of 30 students, including the petitioner. The key findings penned down therein were: (i) mismatch between serial numbers of answer books used by candidates and official records; (ii) strong indications of substitution or interchange of answer sheets; and (iii) tracing of a list of 46 missing blank answer sheets, raising concern that the same were illicitly used in the scam.Based on the committee’s findings and in exercise of powers under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance, the Vice Chancellor constituted a Board of Discipline to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The Court was notified that the Board conducted a detailed inquiry and summoned all 30 students involved. During the proceedings, 26 students claimed that the handwriting on their answer sheets was their own, while four students admitted that some of the answer sheets did not contain their handwriting.To ascertain the authenticity of the disputed scripts, the Board sought the assistance of a government-approved handwriting expert. In his report dated 28.07.2025, the expert concluded that the handwriting on the answer sheets attributed to the petitioner did not match his admitted specimen handwriting.The court was informed that a show-cause notice dated 03.10.2025 was issued to the petitioner under Clause 3(1)(s) read with Clause 4(f) of the Ordinance, asking him to explain why the penalty of expulsion should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted a written response and was also granted a personal hearing before the Board of Discipline. After reviewing, the board recommended the penalty. The Bench observed,”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 impugnedorder 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 court held that though the allegations against the petitioner are undoubtedly grave, the same cannot obviate the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, compliance with which is a sine qua non before passing any adverse order. Following this, the court set aside the order and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Vice Chancellor, whereupon the latter shall furnish a complete copy of the recommendations of the Board of Discipline to him, against proper acknowledgement. It is clarified that all relevant documents have already been supplied by the Board of Discipline to the petitioner, as recorded in the impugned order and not disputed before this Court.(b) The petitioner shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the recommendations, file his objections thereto, including his plea regarding the proportionality of punishment. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.”It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the issue of compliance with the principles of natural justice and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case,” the court concluded. To view the court order, click on the link below:https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/03/11/punjab-and-haryana-hc-order–332127.pdfAlso read- Patients in emergencies cannot wait for empanelled hospitals, Punjab and Haryana HC directs full reimbursement