D.P. Wadhwa, J.

1. The petitioner, a student of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) IV Year Course (Architecture and Town Planning) in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, a University constituted under the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, . 1988, has filed this petition against the University seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 1 July 1994 issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the examination of the final year B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) scheduled for 10 July 1994. The respondents are the University through its Vice Chancellor, the Proctor and the Controller of Examination. In the impugned show cause notice dated July 1 1994, which had been issued by the Officiating Proctor under the directions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, it is alleged that Mr. Mohammad Haroon. Chowkidar of the University, reported that the petitioner along with his friends physically assaulted him on 30 June 1994 while he was performing his duty in the Faculty of Education which resulted in serious head injuries to him and that it was an attack on a University employee while he was on duty. The petitioner was told that it was a serious breach of discipline and he was required to explain his action for consideration of the disciplinary committee. He was asked to submit his reply latest by 4.00 p.m. the following day failing which it was to be presumed that he had nothing to say in his defence. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice that, in the meanwhile, the Vice Chancellor has directed that the petitioner might not be allowed to appear in the examination paper to be held on 4 July, 1994. Petitioner says this paper was rescheduled for 10 July 1994. Petitioner says he received this show cause notice only on 4 July 1994 at 6.00 p.m. and he complains that on the one hand he was called upon to show cause against his alleged action and at the same time the Vice Chancellor, without affording any opportunity to him either to submit any reply or to give him any hearing, had imposed the punishment whereby the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the last examination of the final year of the B.Sc. Engineering (Civil). He said that the Disciplinary Committee of the University had yet to determine and come to any conclusion with regard to the alleged act complained of against the petitioner. He questioned the right of the University to debar him from appearing in the examination.

2. This matter was listed before this Bench on 8 July, 1994. It was filed on the same day and on mentioning by the Counsel for the petitioner before the Chief Justice on 8 July 1994 it was ordered to be listed on that very day. When the matter came up before us at 2.00 p.m. we were not quite satisfied with the allegations made in the petition. There was no averment if any reply was sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice. We directed that petitioner should appear in Court before we passed any order. We fixed the hearing again at 4.00 p.m. The petitioner appeared and we recorded his statement. He admitted having sent his reply to the show cause notice on 6 July 1994 which was received by the University at 1.40 p.m. on that day. He filed a photo copy of his reply which we marked as Exhibit P-3. The petitioner said that thereafter he did not receive any communication nor he was called before the meeting of any Disciplinary Committee to present his case. He said that he was to appear in one written paper only which was to be held on 10 July 1994 and that thereafter only viva voce examination would remain. Acting on the statement of the petitioner we issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued returnable on 15 July 1994 and at the same time directed that the petitioner be allowed to take his examination to be held on 10 July 1994. We also recorded the undertaking of the petitioner that he would not create any nuisance or otherwise and shall abide by the rules and regulations of the University.

3. The respondents have since submitted their reply to the show cause notice on the affidavit of Professor Bashiruddin Ahmed. Vice Chancellor of the University. He has made serious allegations about the conduct of the petitioner in the University and has accused him of gross indiscipline in the campus. The Vice Chancellor also brought on record communication dated 8 July 1994 sent to the petitioner. It was received by the petitioner on the same day at 12.25 p.m. as per the endorsement made by him while acknowledging the same. In this communication detailed facts were mentioned as to how the action was taken against the petitioner after considering his reply to the show cause notice dated 1 July 1994. The petitioner, when he appeared before us on 8 July 1994 at 4.00 p.m., concealed this communication from us and made a statement on oath that he did not receive any communication by the time he had made the statement. That fact itself would show the conduct of the petitioner that he had no regard for truth and can even lie before a Division Bench of the High Court. We took serious note of this conduct of the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him as to why a complaint for an offence under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, which appeared to have been committed by him, be not filed against him in the Court of competent jurisdiction. He has since filed his reply to that notice to which we will presently refer.

4. By order dated 15 July 1994 we vacated the interim order made earlier by us on 8 July 1994 while issuing show cause notice in the petition to the respondents. In his affidavit the Vice Chancellor has referred to a bloody fracas on 31 May 1994 in which the petitioner was also involved and again his involvement in the shameful incident with the Chowkidar of the Faculty of Education on 30 June 1994. It is stated that after an initial altercation with the Chowkidar the petitioner left the faculty premises only to return accompanied by a group of hoodlums with chain, sticks and knives and beat up Mr. Haroon, the Chowkidar, mercilessly. The Chowkidar had to be rushed to the hospital and a First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner with the police. The Vice Chancellor said that the show cause notice was issued to him on this account and his reply was duly considered by him, and under the powers conferred upon him by the Jamia Millia Islamia Act and the statutes made thereunder he directed the petitioner to be barred from appearing in the remaining examinations of Civil Engineering (IV Year). The Vice Chancellor in his affidavit has further stated that the petitioner had spread an uncalled for fear psychosis among the students and staff of the University and was contributing by his acts to a cult of violence on the campus. He said that the presence of the petitioner in the campus of the University was prejudicial to the maintenance of academic atmosphere and that if no disciplinary action was permitted against him it would embolden and encourage others for using physical force and violance on the campus. The Vice Chancellor also referred to an earlier incident of 31 May 1994 wherein the petitioner was involved in assaulting a fellow student Mohd. Arshad Nizami. Another student Mohd. Arif Khan also complained that the petitioner led a mob of lawless elements into the S.R.K. Hostel and assaulted him with a lathi: Even the Warden of the hostel. Mr. Iqtedar, was badly injured and required medical attention. Yet another student Babar Qureshi had to be hospitalised. All this, the Vice Chancellor says, was as a consequence of the atrocious actions of the petitioner along with a group of his followers carrying chains, rods, swords and knives. Of this incident as well a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. It is with anguish, the Vice Chancellor says in his affidavit, that while the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner regarding incident of 31 May 1994 he perpetuated the present dastardly act of 30 June 1994.

5. It is unnecessary for us to refer to other averments made in the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor and what we have said above shocks the judicial mind. We find that the petitioner has not come to this Court with true averments and misled us in even entertaining this petition. We would, therefore, dismiss the same with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000.

6. Now coming to the show cause notice issued by us to the petitioner as to why a complaint be not filed against him as it appeared to us that he committed an offence punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code. In reply to this, the petitioner begs to tender an unconditional apology for stating on 8 July 1994 that he did not receive any communication. He says this wrong statement was made unintentionally and without any desire to obtain a favourable order by making such a statement. He said that the letter dated 8 July 1994 was collected by him in the University around lunch time and he did not go through the same because he was in the midst of preparation for examination and went to the library. We are unable to accept this submission. This again does not appear to us to be true when on the communication dated 8 July 1994 itself he has even noted the time of his receipt by hand, and there was no question, at that time, for the petitioner to prepare for the examination as he had been debarred from taking the examination. We would reject his explanation. We are of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice that a complaint be filed against the petitioner as mentioned aforesaid. We, therefore, direct the Joint Registrar (Appellate) of this Court to file a complaint in writing against the petitioner for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.