The plaintiff claimed that Peking University's decision to revoke its doctoral degree was wrong in both substance and procedure. The defendant did not find that the plaintiff's doctoral thesis was fraudulent, but exercised the power to revoke the degree beyond his authority; When the plaintiff applied for a doctorate, the papers involved were in a state of being published and not published. The plaintiff has officially published more than 2 papers during the school period, which meets the requirements of the school to apply for a doctoral degree. The thesis involved is not a necessary condition for the plaintiff to apply for a doctorate, and the defendant has no specific argument for the existence of "serious plagiarism" in the thesis involved.
In terms of procedure, Yu believes that the defendant did not inform her of the facts and reasons on which the investigation procedures and conclusions were based in time during the investigation and handling process, and never let her consult the investigation report, evaluation opinions and other important evidence materials, and did not let her defend herself before making the decision to revoke her doctoral degree, which violated her right to defense.
Defendant Peking University argued that the plaintiff seriously copied articles published by overseas scholars while studying in Peking University, and accordingly published papers in his own name, which seriously violated the relevant regulations of the state and Peking University. The writing, submission and use time of the papers involved are included in the plaintiff's school period, and the plaintiff's publication of the papers involved belongs to the act of publishing academic papers during the school period. Plagiarism in publishing the papers involved by the plaintiff has exceeded half of the original text, which has constituted serious plagiarism with serious nature and bad influence.
Peking University believes that his decision to revoke the plaintiff's doctorate is well-founded in law, legal in procedure and well-founded. According to the relevant regulations, the school department has the right, evidence and order to make a "decision".
After hearing the case, the court held that Peking University, as a degree-conferring institution, has the administrative authority to revoke the awarded degree according to law. Therefore, the decision made by Peking University on Yu belongs to the administrative act stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China; A lawsuit filed against this decision also belongs to the scope of administrative litigation of the people's court.
Although the People's Republic of China (PRC) Academic Degrees Regulations and relevant laws and regulations do not clearly stipulate the procedures for revoking the doctoral degree, revoking the doctoral degree involves the vital interests of the relative person, denying the corresponding academic level obtained by those who have obtained the doctoral degree, which has a great impact on the legitimate rights and interests of the relative person. Therefore, when making the Decision, Peking University should follow the principle of due process, fully listen to Yu's statements and arguments on the basis of finding out the facts, and ensure that he enjoys the corresponding rights. (Legal Evening News ID:fzwb_52 1652 16)
In this case, Peking University did not fully listen to Yu's statement and defense before making a decision. Therefore, the "decision" made by Peking University against a certain disadvantage violates the principle of due process.
In addition, the "Decision" made by Peking University failed to specify the specific terms of its application, so its decision has no clear legal basis, and the application of law is also inappropriate.
To sum up, the "Decision" made by Peking University violates legal procedures and the applicable law is improper, so the court should cancel it. After the "Decision" is revoked according to law, it shall be handled by Peking University in accordance with relevant regulations. In addition, Yu's claim to restore the legal effect of his doctoral degree certificate does not belong to the scope of this case and is rejected according to law.