Less than a month after Punjab University knocked for trying to restrict the freedom of speech and the expression of uncomfortable Senators who often questioned the authorities. Today, a division bench of Punjab and Haryana High court dismissed the appeal filed by the University.
The appeal was of approximately 275 pages long, filed by Punjab University along with other appellants placed before the Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta this morning. The Bench refused to negotiate in the matter while dismissing the appeal on the threshold.
The case started with a petition filed against the university and other respondents by Munish Pal Singh, alias Munish Verma, through counsel Pankaj Jain. He was seeking cancellation of an order dated December 20, 2019, in which his name was removed from the graduate’s list.
When appeared before the single bench of Justice Fateh Deep Singh, the university submitted that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in the annual examination of the year 2014. He committed a mistake and done harm to the university’s image, University stated.
On the other hand, Jain defended the petitioner by saying that this action is due to the petitioner related to his activism. He had dug out many major and certain issues regarding University and its budget. Describing this reason as the major reason behind the victimization of the petitioner. Jain also contended that the petitioner gave a dissenting note on the university budget of 2014-2015 in the Senate on 29 March 2019.
Ir resulted in a complaint to PU chancellor and he then, ordered in an inquiry. Jain also defended the petitioner saying that the act was nothing but a sinister design woven by authorities to ensure that the action against the victim is such that he cannot compete in the Senate elections in the future.
Listening to the petitioners’ advocate, Justice Fateh Deep Singh had observed that it was never satisfactorily opposed by the respondent’s pleadings that petitioners were an uncomfortable Senator, who often questioned the authorities and kept large interest in University.
The inquiry initiated by the stand of the petitioner never got completed and was still pending.
Some transcripts were obtained from the DVD prepared by the petitioner under RTI and Justice Fateh Deep Singh had examined all the dialogue by meeting various people in-person including the vice-chancellor.
The bench of justice stated that whatever the cause of petitioner dismissal, the authorities were in a hurry that they wanted to throw out the petitioner by all means and ways to ensure their designs. The conclusion is that the respondent authorities were worried about the petitioner’s conduct and trying to restrict his freedom of speech.