Case Background
The petitioners are two students of Darbhanga College of Engineering, admitted in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering branch for the academic session 2021–25.
They had cleared the Bihar Combined Competitive Examination Board Examination, 2021 and were regularly pursuing their course, successfully completing previous semesters with good CGPA. There was no record of any earlier misconduct against them.
On 19 October 2023, a protest took place in the college. Students were agitating about lack of basic amenities in the college and also about fear of action for shortage of attendance after Bihar Engineering University made 75% attendance compulsory by Letter No. 470/23 dated 05.10.2023.
The protest escalated into a lockdown of the institute and attracted print and electronic media coverage. The college administration reported the matter to higher authorities. The issue was then taken up by the Disciplinary Committee of Darbhanga College of Engineering.
On 23.02.2024, under Letter No. 392, the Disciplinary Committee issued a notice to the petitioners and others asking them to explain why they should not be expelled from the college. A questionnaire was also given to them.
The petitioners submitted detailed replies to every point raised in the questionnaire. Despite this, the Disciplinary Committee treated them as having played a leading role in the lockdown and as having provoked other students.
On 06.03.2024, under Memo No. 458, signed by the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, the petitioners were expelled from the college and hostel for one year. They were told they could rejoin from 5th Semester with the 2022–26 batch and were directed to vacate the hostel within two weeks.
The petitioners filed this writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the office order dated 23.02.2024 and the expulsion order dated 06.03.2024. They also sought permission to sit in the 5th Semester examinations.
On 01.04.2024, the High Court, by an interim order, directed the Principal to allow the petitioners to appear in the mid-semester exam of 5th Semester, subject to final outcome of the case.
During the pendency of the writ petition, another office order (Memo No. 1105 dated 06.07.2024) restrained the petitioners from attending offline/online classes of 6th Semester. This led to filing of I.A. No. 01 of 2024. The Court, in light of its earlier order, allowed them to appear in all exams, but their results were withheld awaiting final decision in the writ.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, heard both sides and examined the documents on record, including the college’s disciplinary rules and internal reports.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that they were sincere students with good CGPA and satisfactory attendance. The 19.10.2023 protest was mainly by students who were short in attendance and feared punitive action after the 75% attendance rule.
The petitioners’ names did not appear in the list of students having less than 60% attendance as on 14.10.2023, contained in Memo No. 1493 dated 20.10.2023. Their names also did not appear in the list of “hardcore disturbing students” leading the strike on 19.10.2023. These lists were part of the college records.
The petitioners’ case was that they were in their hostel at the time of lockdown. Later, when media reached the campus, petitioner no. 2 answered queries about lack of basic amenities such as electricity, drinking water and medical facilities. She did not use indecent language or provoke students.
The Principal consulted teachers and faculty members of the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department about the conduct of the petitioners. The teachers were allowed to watch the video of the protest uploaded on “India 24 Times” on 19.10.2023.
The faculty report, placed on record as Annexure-5, stated that around 200–300 students appeared in the video. Interviews of two boys and one girl were shown. The teachers specifically noted that petitioner no. 2 only complained about lack of facilities, used no indecent or improper language and was not seen addressing or provoking the assembled students. They also certified that the petitioners’ performance in class was satisfactory and their behaviour with teachers was good.
Despite this favourable faculty report, the Disciplinary Committee, in its meeting held on 01.03.2024, concluded that the petitioners had played a major role in the agitation and lockdown. It treated their conduct as a “major offence” and recommended expulsion for one year.
The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee himself signed Memo No. 458 dated 06.03.2024 expelling the petitioners from college and hostel and directing them to vacate the hostel within two days, instead of merely recommending action to the Principal.
The petitioners’ counsel highlighted that Disciplinary Rules for Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics had been framed by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, under Memo No. 2634 dated 27.10.2011. These rules laid down a specific procedure for handling complaints against students.
As per Rule 1, when a complaint of indiscipline is made or comes to the Principal’s notice and the Principal feels disciplinary action is required, the Principal must frame charges and communicate them to the student. A show-cause must then be served, giving time for a reply. Only after considering the reply and being satisfied that there is a prima facie case, or if there is no reply, can the Principal refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for recommendation on punishment.
The petitioners contended that this mandatory sequence was not followed, that the Committee was not properly constituted according to the rules, and that they were not given any opportunity to be heard on the question of punishment, even after their explanation to the questionnaire had been submitted.
On the other hand, the college and Disciplinary Committee (respondent nos. 6–7) filed a counter affidavit. They claimed that on the “fateful day” the petitioners actively participated in the agitation against attendance restrictions and lockdown of the institute, and that the premises had to be vacated only after intervention of the District Administration.
The college stated that a Fact Finding Committee was constituted by Memo No. 1738 dated 14.12.2023. Based on its report and examination of video footage, they claimed the petitioners were seen provoking and pressurising other students to participate in the protest. According to them, notice was issued, the explanations were considered, and the Disciplinary Committee unanimously recommended expulsion for one year.
The respondents also claimed that later, on request of teachers of all faculties by letter dated 07.03.2024, it was decided that the concerned students could, if they wished, submit a representation to the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna against the punishment, suggesting an alternative remedy.
The Court first addressed the argument of alternative remedy. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr., (2025) 4 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly where there is violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or where orders are passed without jurisdiction.
The Court noted that access to the High Court under Article 226 is part of the basic structure, and that the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not compulsion.
Turning to the facts, the Court found several important aspects:
First, the petitioners had consistently good academic records and no previous complaints. The attendance record showed they did not fall in the list of students with less than even 60% attendance, unlike the main agitators who feared action under the 75% rule.
Second, the official list of hardcore disturbing students leading the strike on 19.10.2023 did not contain the names of the petitioners.
Third, the faculty report (Annexure-5) clearly vouched for the petitioners’ behaviour and performance. It also confirmed that in the media video the petitioners were not addressing the crowd, and that petitioner no. 2 only spoke about lack of facilities without any indecent language.
Fourth, the minutes of the Disciplinary Committee meeting dated 01.03.2024 did not show any real discussion or reasoning as to why the petitioners’ explanation was rejected or why the behaviour of their parents was found unsatisfactory. The Committee moved straight to treating their conduct as a major offence and recommending expulsion.
Fifth, the Court emphasised that under the 2011 Disciplinary Rules, charges framed by the Principal had to be communicated and a show-cause specifically on those charges had to be served before punishment. In this case, neither the charges framed by the Committee were communicated to the petitioners, nor was any show-cause on those charges served before inflicting major punishment. The constitution of the Committee itself was also not in line with the rules under Clause 2.
The Court held that the authorities had “failed to follow the mandate of the rules”. There was no proper opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the proposed punishment, and the favourable faculty report was completely ignored.
In light of these findings, the Patna High Court concluded that the expulsion order could not stand.
The Court set aside Memo No. 458 dated 06.03.2024 and directed respondent nos. 4–6 (Bihar Engineering University and the Principal and authorities of Darbhanga College of Engineering) to publish the final results of the petitioners forthwith, without undue delay, after completing any necessary formalities.
The writ petition was allowed, pending applications disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for students of government engineering colleges and polytechnics in Bihar.
It makes clear that even in cases of campus protests or alleged indiscipline, colleges must strictly follow their own disciplinary rules. They cannot skip steps, ignore favourable reports, or impose harsh punishments without proper notice and hearing.
For students, this decision shows that expulsion and similar major punishments can be challenged if procedures laid down in government rules are not followed, or if authorities ignore key evidence in their favour.
For college administrations, the case underlines that Disciplinary Committees are recommendatory bodies and must work within the framework of the rules. Final decisions must respect principles of natural justice: clear charges, proper show-cause notices, reasoned consideration of replies, and fair opportunity before deciding punishment.
The judgment also reinforces that the Patna High Court will intervene under Article 226 even where an alternative remedy exists, if there is denial of fair procedure and violation of natural justice.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Could the Patna High Court entertain the writ petition despite an alleged alternative remedy before higher departmental authorities?
Answer: Yes. Relying on (2025) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where there is violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction. -
Issue: Whether the expulsion of the petitioners for one year was valid when the 2011 Disciplinary Rules for Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics were not properly followed?
Answer: No. The Court found that charges were not properly framed and communicated, no specific show-cause on the proposed major punishment was given, the committee’s constitution was defective, the petitioners were not heard on punishment, and favourable faculty reports were ignored. The expulsion order was set aside. -
Issue: Whether the college and Disciplinary Committee acted in accordance with principles of natural justice in dealing with the petitioners’ alleged role in the protest?
Answer: No. The absence of proper charge communication, lack of reasoned consideration of their explanations, and failure to give opportunity before imposing major punishment amounted to breach of natural justice.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr., (2025) 4 SCC 1
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5350 of 2024
Case Title: Ayushi Anand & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 378
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Ankita Tripathi, Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. Anand Pd. Singh, SC-15
Nature of the case: Writ petition (civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging disciplinary orders of expulsion and seeking consequential reliefs regarding examination and results.
Link to the judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
