High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.12.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition Nos.5829 and 6748 of 1999K.Hariharan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5829 of 1999L.Gopinathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6748 of 1999 vs. 1. The Vice Chancellor, Bharatidasan University Trichy2. The Registrar Bharatidasan University Trichy3. The Principal Arignar Anna Govt. Arts College Musiri, Trichy .. Respondents in both the writpetitionsThe writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to thecommunication No.NAKA/1001/U/98, dated 4.2.1999, No.NAKA/1001/U/98dated 16.3.1999 and No.NAKA/1001/U/98 dated 23.3.1999 issued by thethird respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondentsto permit the petitioners to pay the examination fees and to appearfor the examination to be held during April-May 1999. For petitioners : Mr.U.KarunakaranFor respondents : Mr.V.Govardhanan for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Manoharan Government Advocate for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E RHeard Mr.U.Karunakaran, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Mr.V.Govardhanan, the learned counsel appearing forthe first and second respondents and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learnedGovernment Advocate appearing for the third respondent. 2. It is stated by the petitioners that they had joined theBachelor of Arts Degree Course in Economics in the third respondentCollege during the academic year 1996-97. The petitioners were due towrite the final Semester Examinations, in the third year of theirdegree course, during the months of April-May 1999. On 04.02.1999,elections were being conducted in the Department of Economics toelect the office bearers. The petitioners and some others hadrequested the head of the department not to conduct the departmentelections at the fag end of the year. During the elections, disputeshad arisen amongst the supporters of the various candidates resultingin creation of serious animosity. As a consequence, a criminalcomplaint had been registered before the Sub-Inspector of MusiriPolice Station. 3. The petitioners have further stated that, based on thecriminal complaint given by one Nandakumar, the Sub-Inspector ofMusiri Police Station had registered a case, under Sections 147,323and 247-C of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the complaint, the thirdrespondent had issued a suspension order to the petitioners andthree other students, without furnishing a copy of the complaint andwithout conducting any enquiry. In the suspension order, it had beenmentioned that one Hariharan, along with other students, hadassaulted Nandakumar and that the petitioners had only consumed somealcohol. The third respondent had directed the petitioners not toenter the College premises till the enquiry that was to be initiatedagainst them was completed. On 11.2.1999, the third respondent hadissued a notice directing the petitioners to appear before theDisciplinary Enquiry Committee, on 18.2.1999. The petitioners hadappeared before the Disciplinary Enquiry Committee and had giventheir oral and written explanations denying the allegations madeagainst them. 4. It is further stated that the members of the EnquiryCommittee had advised the petitioners to accept the charges so that alenient view could be taken in their favour.Even though thepetitioners had denied the allegations made against them by thecomplainant by way of written submissions, the third respondent hadissued a communication No.Na.Ka./1001/U/98, dated 16.3.1999,informing the petitioners that the charges against them, with regardto their consuming of alcoholic drinks, on 4.2.1999, had been proved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It is stated by the petitioners that by a non-speakingsummary order, the petitioners were asked to show cause, on or before23.03.1999, as to why they should not be expelled from the College.Following the communication, dated 16.3.1999, the petitioners had metthe members of the Enquiry Committee and requested them to revoke thesuspension order and to permit the petitioners to write the ensuingexaminations. Since the members of the Enquiry Committee had assuredthat if the petitioners gave a signed letter, regretting for theincident and also undertaking that they would not involve themselvesin any such incident in future, the petitioners would be permitted towrite the final examinations and the suspension order passed againstthem would be revoked. 6. Based on the assurance given by the members of the EnquiryCommittee and on the advice of the third respondent, thepetitioners had submitted the letters signed by them to the EnquiryCommittee. Thereafter, on 23.3.1999, the third respondent had issuedanother communication No.Na.Ka./1001/U/98, dated 23.3.1999, informingthe petitioners that their Transfer Certificates had been sent to thefirst respondent University, without assigning any reason for thesaid decision. 7. It is further stated by the petitioners that it is not clearfrom the impugned order as to whether it amounts to imposing apunishment by way of expulsion from the College. Due to the order ofsuspension, the petitioners could not attend the College andtherefore, they could not get the required attendance to appear inthe examination held in the months of April-May 1999. Further, thethird respondent had not permitted the petitioners to pay theexamination fee for the final Semester examinations. Even though someof the other persons, on whom criminal proceedings had been lodged,were allowed to write the examinations, the petitioners had beendenied such opportunity. The punishment of suspension imposed on thepetitioners and their expulsion from the College thereafter, aredisproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Further, the impugnedorders had been passed without following the principles of naturaljustice. Even though the petitioners have been having a good trackrecord till the false allegations had been made against them, thethird respondent had not taken a sympathetic view in favour of thepetitioners. The impugned orders had been issued on the basis of afalse complaint and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents hadsubmitted that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy as theyhave been found to have indulged themselves in serious misconduct, asfound by the Enquiry Committee constituted to go into the chargesagainst them. 9. From the records available before this Court, it is foundthat an enquiry committee had been constituted to conduct an enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as the charges alleged against the petitioners were serious innature. An enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry committee, afterissuing show cause notices to the concerned persons. The petitionershad submitted letters to the enquiry committee regretting for theincidents that had taken place, based on which the disciplinaryaction was taken against them. Once the persons facing the chargeshave been given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves againstthe charges and if the enquiry committee comes to a conclusion thatthe charges had been proved, it is not for this Court to interferewith the findings or its conclusions. Further, it is not for thisCourt to prescribe the punishment that is to be meted out to thestudents who have been found to have committed the misconduct. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionershad prayed for sympathy being shown towards the petitioners as theirfuture would be in jeopardy, if they are not permitted to completetheir studies in the third respondent college. Though this Court iswell aware of the consequences that may follow due to the punishmentimposed on the petitioners, there cannot be misplaced sympathy asthat would be a wrong signal sent in encouraging indiscipline ininstitutions of learning. It is clear from the decision of theSupreme Court in CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS Vs. G.S.SUNDER (1993 Supp(3) S.C.C. 82), that in the matter of enforcement of discipline ineducational institutions the Courts of law should be slow ininterfering. 11. In MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF S. & H.S. EDUCATION Vs.K.S.GANDHI ((1991) 2 S.C.C. 716), the Supreme Court has held thatapplicability of the principles of natural justice acts as adeterrent to arbitrary decisions made in flagrant infraction of fairplay. It is not a rule of thumb or a strait-jacket formula as anabstract proposition of law. 12. It goes without saying that the primary object of alleducational institutions are to impart quality education, as well ascharacter building in their students to enable them to emerge as goodcitizens in future. Unless strict discipline is maintained in theinstitutions of learning, the ultimate object of imparting qualityeducation and of character building would be lost, leading todisastrous consequences. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the consideredview that it is best left to the authorities concerned to find outand to decide as to whether the students concerned had indulgedthemselves in causing the misconduct as alleged and also to choosethe punishment to be imposed on them. 14. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners may be permitted to make appropriate representations tothe authorities concerned, with regard to the charges framed againstthem, the findings arrived thereon by the enquiry committee and thepunishment imposed on the petitioners so that it may be possible forthe authorities to opt for a lenient view in the matter, if they areso persuaded, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In view of the above submissions it is observed that it isopen to the petitioners to submit the necessary representations, asthey deem fit, to the authorities concerned, with regard to thealleged charges and the punishment imposed on them. On suchrepresentations being made, the concerned authorities may considerthe same and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, keepingin view the facts and circumstances of case. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Vice Chancellor, Bharatidasan University Trichy2. The Registrar Bharatidasan University, Trichy3. The Principal Arignar Anna Govt. Arts College Musiri, Trichy +1cc to M/s Row and Reddy,Advocates, SR.No.74435 Writ Petition Nos.5829 and 6748 of 1999bk [co]gkg/25.2