Shere Punjab Private ITI vs Directorate General of Training 2026 DHC 1167

Synopsis

The present judgment arises from a challenge mounted by a private Industrial Training Institute (ITI) against an order of de‑affiliation passed by the Directorate General of Training (DGT) and the subsequent dismissal of its statutory appeal. The petitioner‑ITI was accused of admitting a student into a trade for which it held no affiliation and charging excess fees. Although the complaint was ultimately withdrawn by the complainant’s family and a joint inspection report found the infrastructure satisfactory, the State Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Committee recommended de‑affiliation. The DGT passed the de‑affiliation order on 20 September 2024, with the consequence that the petitioner was debarred from admitting fresh students. Crucially, the respondent had blocked the petitioner’s admission portal from the Academic Session 2023–2024 itself, i.e., nearly a year before the formal de‑affiliation order. The High Court, while not disturbing the finding of malpractice, held that the extraordinary delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings—in gross violation of the respondent’s own Standard Operating Procedure—caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. Relying on the doctrine of proportionality and recognising de‑affiliation as the “civil death” of an educational institution, the Court directed that the period during which the portal was blocked (Academic Sessions 2023–2024, 2024–2025 and 2025–2026) be counted towards the minimum three‑year debarment prescribed under the Affiliation Norms. Consequently, the Court ordered restoration of affiliation with effect from the Academic Session 2026–2027. The judgment underscores that an administering authority cannot indefinitely suspend an institution’s operations through de facto embargoes while delaying the formal penal order, and that the penalty must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

2026:DHC:1167

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan

Judgment Reserved on: September 1, 2025
Judgment Delivered on: February 11, 2026

Proceedings: W.P.(C) No. 10825 of 2025 with CM Appl. No. 44756 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1167

1.1. Statutes, Regulations and Executive Instruments

Instrument Relevant Provision Purpose Affiliation Norms for ITIs, 2018 Instruction 4.1.5 Prescribes that de‑affiliation shall be for a minimum period of three years Standard Operating Procedure for De‑affiliation, 2022 Timelines (cumulative ~95 days)Lays down stage‑wise deadlines from show‑cause notice to final order Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226 Source of writ jurisdiction for judicial review of administrative actionGeneral Clauses Act, 1897–Principles of statutory interpretation (applied contextually)

1.2. Precedents Relied Upon

• Mount Columbus School & Ors. v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7234 (Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court)
  – Held: De‑affiliation is an extreme measure amounting to “civil death” of an institution. It must be resorted to only in the most exceptional circumstances, after scrupulous adherence to natural justice and fair procedure.
  – Applied: To underscore the severity of the penalty and the consequent need for proportionality and timely conclusion of proceedings.

1.3. Doctrines Applied

• Doctrine of Proportionality – The punishment must not be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

• Principles of Natural Justice – Audi alteram partem; requirement of a fresh show‑cause notice if the deciding authority differs from the inspecting body.

• Legitimate Expectation – Implicit in the binding timelines of the SOP.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1. Affiliation History

The petitioner‑ITI was granted affiliation by the respondent/DGT vide letter dated 6 December 2012 to run two units in ‘Electrician Trade’ and two units in ‘Welder Trade’. By the time of the impugned order, it was running six units in Electrician Trade and two units in Welder Trade.

2.2. Complaint and Initial Inquiry

In 2022, the father of a student lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had charged excess fees and had misled him into admitting his son into ‘Diesel Mechanic’ trade—a trade for which the petitioner held no affiliation. The Deputy Director, Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 16 September 2022 recommending strict action.

2.3. Show‑Cause Notice and Response

Pursuant thereto, a show‑cause notice was issued on 1 October 2022, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why de‑affiliation proceedings be not initiated. The petitioner submitted its reply within the stipulated twenty‑one days.

2.4. Joint Inspection and Positive Report

The State Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Committee (SSDEC), in its meeting on 20 February 2023, decided to conduct a joint inspection. The inspection took place on 5 July 2023. Meanwhile, the complainant expired, and his wife filed an affidavit on 20 July 2023 stating that she did not wish to pursue the matter further as her son had moved abroad.

The Regional Directorate of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (RDSDE), Punjab, vide communication dated 21 August 2023, reported that the inspection committee was satisfied with the infrastructure, tools, equipment, workshop and classroom area, and recommended that “the ITI may be allowed to start its units.” The communication also noted the complainant‑wife’s affidavit.

2.5. De‑affiliation Recommendation and Order

Notwithstanding the favourable inspection report and the withdrawal of the complaint, the SSDEC in its 3rd meeting held on 10 October 2023 recommended de‑affiliation. Based on this recommendation, the DGT passed the impugned de‑affiliation order dated 20 September 2024. The order itself did not specify the period of de‑affiliation, but Instruction 4.1.5 of the Affiliation Norms‑2018 prescribes a minimum period of three years.

2.6. Parallel Proceedings and Appeal

The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 29634 of 2024 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was disposed of on 8 January 2025 with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Committee. The appeal was preferred on 20 January 2025 and dismissed by the Appellate Committee on 1 April 2025 (communicated on 29 April 2025), leading to the present writ petition.

2.7. De facto Debarment Prior to Formal Order

Critically, the respondent had blocked the admission portal for the petitioner‑ITI from the Academic Session 2023–2024 onwards. This factual position was not disputed by the respondent during the hearing, and was recorded in the High Court’s order dated 10 October 2025.

3. Issues for Determination

1. Whether the impugned de‑affiliation order and the appellate order suffer from arbitrariness and violation of the principles of proportionality.

2. Whether the gross delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings—in the face of the respondent’s own Standard Operating Procedure—vitiated the penal action or at least entitled the petitioner to have the pre‑order embargo period counted towards the penalty.

3. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint and the positive joint inspection report ought to have led to dropping of the proceedings.

4. What constitutes a proportionate penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Ratio Decidendi: Reasoning of the Court

4.1. Non‑adherence to SOP Timelines Caused Prejudice

The Court meticulously examined the Standard Operating Procedure for De‑affiliation (2022) , which prescribes a cumulative timeline of approximately 95 days from the issuance of show‑cause notice to the final order. In the present case, the show‑cause notice was issued on 1 October 2022, yet the de‑affiliation order was passed on 20 September 2024—a delay of nearly two years.

“Had the respondent adhered to the timelines as stipulated in the SOP, the order of de‑affiliation could have been passed within a period of 95 days or at least within a reasonable time of four months from the date of show cause notice dated 01.10.2022. Thus, calculated the de‑affiliation order could have been passed in January 2023 and the period of de‑affiliation for three years would have expired on 30.01.2026.”

The Court held that this inordinate delay, coupled with the fact that the admission portal was blocked from Academic Session 2023–2024 itself, caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, which had already suffered three academic sessions of de facto debarment by the time the writ petition was heard.

4.2. De‑affiliation is ‘Civil Death’ – An Extreme Measure

Drawing from Mount Columbus School (supra) , the Court observed:

“This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that in the realm of administrative law, particularly in the context of educational institutions, de‑affiliation has been termed as a ‘Civil Death’ inasmuch as such an extreme measure does not merely affect the management, it jeopardises the future of the students and livelihood of the staff.”

Consequently, any such extreme measure must be taken with scrupulous adherence to procedure and without undue delay. The respondent’s failure to act within its own prescribed timelines exacerbated the harshness of the penalty.

4.3. Period of Pre‑Order Embargo Must Be Counted Towards Penalty

The Court carved out a pragmatic and equitable remedy. Since the petitioner had already been prevented from admitting students for the Academic Sessions 2023–2024, 2024–2025 and 2025–2026, and the Affiliation Norms prescribe a minimum three‑year debarment, the Court directed that this pre‑order embargo period be counted towards the three‑year penalty.

“In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the period which preceded the formal de‑affiliation order dated 20.09.2024, during which the portal was blocked for the petitioner ITI practically preventing it from making any admission for the Academic Session 2023‑2024 onwards, is ought to be counted towards the penalty of de‑affiliation of three years.”

4.4. Proportionality and the Withdrawal of Complaint

While the Court acknowledged that the complaint was withdrawn and the joint inspection report was favourable, it did not quash the finding of malpractice. The petitioner had admittedly admitted a student in an unauthorised trade and had transferred the student to another institute without prior approval—actions that constituted misconduct. However, the Court emphasised that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. A three‑year debarment, when the de facto embargo had already run for three years, was held to be sufficient and in consonance with the principle of proportionality.

4.5. No Requirement for Fresh Show‑Cause Notice

The petitioner argued that since the SSDEC disagreed with the positive inspection report, a fresh show‑cause notice ought to have been issued. The Court did not expressly rule on this submission, as it rested its decision primarily on the delay and the counting of the embargo period, thereby rendering a definitive finding on this issue unnecessary for the ultimate relief granted.

5. Legal Principles Established / Reaffirmed

While the judgment is rendered by a Single Bench and does not create binding precedent beyond the Delhi High Court, it authoritatively clarifies the following propositions of administrative law in the context of technical education regulation:

5.1. De facto Embargo Counts Towards Stipulated Penalty Period

Where an authority blocks admissions or otherwise imposes a de facto prohibition on an institution’s operations before the formal penal order is issued, and such embargo continues until the formal order, the entire period of the de facto embargo must be set off against the minimum penalty period prescribed by the regulations. This is a novel application of the doctrine of proportionality and an extension of the principle that substance prevails over form.

5.2. Timelines in SOPs are Not Merely Directory; Unreasonable Delay Attracts Judicial Correction

Although the SOP is an internal guidance document, its timelines are not to be treated as empty formality. Gross violation of such timelines, when coupled with prejudice to the affected party, can invalidate the punitive effect of the delay and entitle the party to have the pre‑decisional embargo period recognised as part of the punishment.

5.3. Reiteration of ‘Civil Death’ Jurisprudence

The judgment reinforces that de‑affiliation is the most severe disciplinary sanction against an educational institution, akin to a “civil death”. Therefore, heightened procedural safeguards—including adherence to stipulated timelines—are implicit even if not expressly mandated by the governing norms.

6. Analysis and Conceptual Examination by the Court

6.1. The Doctrine of Proportionality in Educational Regulation

The Court’s analysis is anchored in the doctrine of proportionality, a well‑established ground of judicial review in administrative law. The Court implicitly applied the four‑stage proportionality test (legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and balancing) recognised in Indian jurisprudence. It found that while the aim of maintaining standards in ITIs was legitimate, the delay rendered the penalty unnecessarily harsh, and balancing the institution’s suffering against the gravity of the misconduct warranted the set‑off.

6.2. Delay as a Factor Mitigating Punishment

The Court treated the unexplained and inordinate delay not as a ground to quash the finding of guilt, but as a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of punishment. This approach mirrors the principle in service jurisprudence that inordinate delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings can entitle the delinquent to have the penalty set aside or modified. The Court innovatively applied this principle to an institutional context.

6.3. Distinction Between De jure and De facto Debarment

A crucial conceptual contribution is the equating of de facto debarment (portal blocked) with de jure de‑affiliation for the purpose of computing the penalty period. The Court recognised that the practical effect of the respondent’s action—irrespective of the formal label—was to debar the institution from functioning. Hence, the institution cannot be made to suffer both the de facto embargo and the full three‑year de jure penalty sequentially. This is a significant advancement in the jurisprudence of administrative sanctions.

6.4. Consideration of the Complainant’s Withdrawal

Although the withdrawal of the complaint did not per se exonerate the petitioner, the Court treated it as a relevant circumstance in the overall proportionality calculus. This indicates that subsequent conduct, including settlement between parties, can be weighed while determining the appropriate sanction.

7. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

7.1. Strengths and Doctrinal Soundness

1. Pragmatic Equitable Relief – The judgment steers a middle course: it neither condones the admitted malpractice nor ignores the prejudice caused by the respondent’s own delay. The direction to count the embargo period as part of the penalty is a creative, just and proportionate remedy.

2. Reinforcement of Procedural Accountability – By highlighting the respondent’s failure to adhere to its own SOP, the Court sends a strong signal that regulatory bodies cannot be lethargic in inflicting grave penalties. Delay in such matters is not merely procedural irregularity; it is substantive injustice.

3. Victim‑centric Approach – The Court’s observation about de‑affection being “civil death” underscores that the real victims are the students and staff, not merely the management. This perspective aligns with the constitutional vision of education as a public good.

7.2. Potential Critique and Unaddressed Questions

1. No Finding on Fresh Show‑Cause Notice – The petitioner’s argument that a fresh show‑cause notice was required when the SSDEC disagreed with the inspection report was not definitively answered. While the Court did not need to decide it in light of the relief granted, the question remains open for future cases.

2. Reliance on ‘Civil Death’ Metaphor – The metaphor, while powerful, may be over‑inclusive. Unlike the dissolution of a company or the death of a natural person, a de‑affiliated ITI can potentially seek re‑affiliation after the debarment period. The Court’s usage, however, was appropriate to emphasise the severity.

3. Whether SOP Timelines are Mandatory – The Court did not expressly hold that the SOP timelines are mandatory and binding. It proceeded on the basis that the delay was “inordinate” and caused prejudice. A clearer enunciation that such timelines, once framed, create a legitimate expectation of timely action, would have strengthened the judgment.

4. Scope of Judicial Review of Penalty – The Court did not disturb the finding of guilt. It merely adjusted the effective period of punishment. This cautious approach respects the domain of the expert regulator while correcting patent injustice.

7.3. Comparative Perspective

The judgment aligns with the broader trend in Indian administrative law where courts have read down rigid penalties in light of mitigating circumstances (e.g., Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463). It also echoes the principle of effectiveness in EU administrative law, which requires that procedures be concluded within a reasonable time.

8. Final Outcome and Operative Directions

The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed as follows:

1. Affiliation to be restored with effect from the Academic Session 2026–2027.

2. The respondent shall open its admission portal for the petitioner‑ITI for the ensuing academic session.

3. The period of de‑affiliation already undergone (Academic Sessions 2023–2024, 2024–2025 and 2025–2026) shall be counted towards the minimum three‑year debarment prescribed under Instruction 4.1.5 of the Affiliation Norms‑2018.

4. The impugned orders of de‑affiliation and the appellate dismissal are not quashed, but their punitive effect is modified to the extent indicated above.

Disposal: W.P.(C) No. 10825 of 2025 and pending application(s) were disposed of in the above terms.

Order pronounced in open Court on this 11th day of February, 2026.

– VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.