Kerala High Court · 2009

WP(C).No. 27625 of 2009(W) - 2 - 7. BALAKRISHNAN, MINOR, AGED 16 YEARS, STUDENT,SREERAMA GOVT.POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, TRIPRAYAR, VALAPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POOVATHINGAL HOUSE,KALLIPPADAM P.O. SHORANUR,REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN SHRI KRISHNAKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SREERAMA GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE TRIPRAYAR, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. TUTOR/WARDEN, SREERAMA GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE TRIPRAYAR, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R3 SMT.G.VANITHA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27625 of 2009(W) I N D E XPETITIONERS' EXHIBITSEXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25.08.09 ISSUED BY R2.EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.14.09.09 ISSUED BY R2.EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED28.09.05 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICTHOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT.24.08.09 SUBMITTEDBY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR HOSTEL R.T.EXT.P4(a):TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DT.29.08.09 SUBMITTED BYSRI.SUNIL KUMAR HOSTEL R.T AGAINST THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION.2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITSEXT.R2(a):TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.B1/1867/09 24.08.09.EXT.R2(b):TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM THEMOTHER OF NANDAKISHORE DT.24.08.09.EXT.R2(c):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25.08.09 OF THE DIRECTOROF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.EXT.R2(d):TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE.EXT.R2(e):TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE.3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITSEXT.R3(a):TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THEDIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDT.29.08.09. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.-------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.27625 OF 2009------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009JUDGMENT“C.R.”1.The petitioners, students of a Government Polytechnic College,face Ext.P2 order imposing removal from certain semesters.Petitioners 1 and 7 are barred from attending classes for 4semesters spreading through the academic years 2009-2010and 2010-2011. The other petitioners are barred for 2semesters spreading over the academic year 2009-2010. All ofthem, except two, are also barred from appearing in theexaminations, while two are permitted to appear in thesupplementary examinations. Petitioners challenge it.2.The plea of the petitioners is that the allegations against them,of having indulged in ragging a deaf and dump student, isunfounded and there is no provision in the college calender todismiss a student from the college. They plead that the KeralaProhibition of Ragging Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as WPC.27625/092the 'Kerala Act', does not contain any provision authorisingdismissal but provides for only suspension of students againstwhom accusation of ragging is made. 3.The petitioners admit that an enquiry was conducted but pleadthat it was thoroughly biased and contend that even before theenquiry, those who had participated in the enquiry hadintimated the petitioners that they will be expelled. Theyplead that they had given statements in the enquiry,expressing their total innocence and that they, including onephysically challenged, are targeted at, on the intervention ofsome politicians. 4.The petitioners further plead that the alleged victim is the realwrong doer and that he had sexual perverts and had exhibitedobnoxious and indecent conduct. It is pointed out that themother of the victim was forced to change her version laterand the enquiry had not focused on the conduct attributed to WPC.27625/093the alleged victim. The petitioners rely heavily on the standtaken by the resident tutor who was in charge of the hosteland who was placed under suspension following the incident.5.Along with the counter affidavit filed by the secondrespondent, the communication given by the Principal of theCollege to the Sub Inspector of Police informing theoccurrence and also the complaint by the mother of thealleged victim are placed on record. The order of suspensionof the resident tutor is also on record along with that counteraffidavit. The report of the enquiry committee is Ext.R2(d).Ext.R2(e) is the accident register cum wound certificate inrelation to the victim. 6.The third respondent resident tutor has placed his counteraffidavit producing, among other things, his explanation givento the department. WPC.27625/0947.In their reply affidavit, the petitioners heavily rely on the standof the resident tutor and contend that the enquiry report istailor-made. They have placed on record Exts.P4 and P4(a)statements of the resident tutor. 8.The entire facts relating to the enquiry is on record. I alsocalled for the files in relation to the disciplinary proceedings,in which, the order of suspension against the resident tutorwas revoked. The case diary of the criminal case is also madeavailable.9.The enquiry file discloses, among other things, the followingfacts:(a) The Principal constituted an enquiry committeeconsisting of the Heads of the Sections in Electronics,Civil, Computer and Mechanical and the WorkshopSuperintendent. Of whom, two are ladies. WPC.27625/095(b) Statements were obtained from 41 persons,including the students who are the petitioners, thevictim as also others. (c) The findings of the enquiry committee show thatalmost all the hostel inmates gave evidence and hadagreed that the victim, a first year student, who wasadmitted to the hostel on 19.8.2009, was attacked bysenior students at about 11 p.m. on 20.3.2009.According to the enquiry committee, the evidenceclearly reveal that those senior students physicallyattacked and mentally harassed the alleged victim forabout 3½ hours in night of 20.8.2009. 10.The committee was of the opinion that the incident mighthave occurred on the refusal of the alleged victim to writeanswers to certain questions put to him by seniors. It was WPC.27625/096noticed that the victim requested for water and was givendrinking water several times during the course of action. 11. It was also noted that no first year student was involved inthe incident and it can be seen that the incident is a clear caseof ragging in terms of the definitions and guidelines of the AllIndia Centre of Technical Education, for short, the 'AICTE'.12.The committee also examined the counter allegations of thesenior students against the victim in relation to the incident.The allegation made against the victim is that he behaved inan indecent manner, as a homo sexual. That version was takenas unbelievable for different reasons. It was noted that thesenior students had not given any evidence in support of thatallegation in the statement. The committee also noted that thepossibility of such a behaviour from a first year student,especially a deaf and dump, that too, within two days of hisstay in the hostel, is not probable or acceptable. WPC.27625/09713.Immediately, it needs to be mentioned that one Sunu, whosestatements are available at Sl. No.8(7,8) in the enquiry file,had first given a statement on 25.8.2009 attributing the victimwith homo sexual advances. However, on 29.8.2009, he gave aversion to the contrary and on being questioned in that regardby the enquiry committee, Sunu had categorically stated thathis earlier version was at the asking and on threat by thesenior students. Sunu is a first year student and he was theroom mate of the victim. With these materials, the enquirycommittee, specifically noticed that Sunu, the room mate ofthe victim, though gave a report on the first day of enquiry on25.8.2009, as to the alleged homo sexual behaviour of thevictim, further corrected his earlier statement and admittedthat he had raised such an allegation on compulsion fromsenior students. I have read the two versions of Sunu asavailable in the enquiry report and I find no reason to hold thatthe findings of the enquiry committee is baseless or WPC.27625/098unavailable on record. Inferences have been rightly drawn onthe basis of the materials on record and the common course ofhuman conduct, in as much as, the committee stated that thevictim who joined the hostel only on 19.8.2009 would not havebehaved in a manner as is attributed against him as on thatday or on the subsequent day. I have also read the otherstatements in the enquiry report. If the versions given by thedifferent students as to the conduct of the victim is to beswallowed, the same would be nothing but the peak ofartificiality, more so because, during the day time of20.8.2009, none of the students had complained, either to theresident tutor or to any other authority, of an attribute to thevictim that he had virtually been going round trying to fiddlethe private parts of the different male students. They,surprisingly, conceived, during the enquiry, to attribute thisallegation to the victim which would give a picturesquedescription of a sexual pervert running from one student toanother, trying to reach out at the private parts of each of such WPC.27625/099student. This version has been found to be unacceptable tothe committee. Having considered the materials in theenquiry file, I find no reason to disagree with that view.14.The committee further found that the petitioners and othersnamed in the impugned order were involved in the acts.Accordingly, the enquiry committee reported to the Principalof the college, specifically recording the findings and alsomaking reference to the AICTE regulations.15.Certain aspects needs to be noticed. Even in the writpetition, the petitioners admit that an enquiry was conducted.They proceed to characterise it as biased and pre-mediated tohold the petitioners guilty. The constitution of the enquirycommittee is not under challenge. As already noticed, theHeads of four departments, of whom 2 were women, and theWorkshop Superintendent were the members of thecommittee. No personal allegations of bias or ill-motive is WPC.27625/0910attributed to them. They belong to the teaching staff. Theallegation in the writ petition is only that the entire exercisehas been a mechanism on ground of certain politicalinvolvement. Except such bald allegation, there is no specificpleading or any shred of evidence to hold so.16.Having found that the constitution of the committee is notunder, and beyond challenge, a perusal of the file would showthat the petitioners also participated in the enquiry. Thestatement of the different students were recorded. Allrelevant details were collected and the findings have beenrendered after adverting to and considering the materials onrecord. I have perused the entire enquiry file and find noground to hold that the findings arrived at by the enquirycommittee and the report it made to the Principal is, in anymanner, unreasonable, arbitrary, perverse, illegal, irrational orlacking in procedural impropriety or unavailable on the WPC.27625/0911materials on record, warranting interference under Article226 of the Constitution of India.17.This takes us to the plea on behalf of the petitioners that theimpugned orders are issued making reference to the KeralaAct, though the said legislation does not make any provisionfor dismissal or barring admission from classes during anyparticular academic session and therefore, the whole exerciseis unauthorised. 18.Ext.P2 makes specific reference to the AICTE notificationdated 25.3.2009. By that notification, the AICTE issued AllIndia Council for Technical Education (Prevention andProhibition of Ragging in Technical Institutions, Universitiesincluding Deemed to be Universities imparting technicaleducation) Regulations, 2009. Those regulations, hereinafterreferred to as the 'AICTE Regulations' were issued in exerciseof statutory power under the AICTE Act, 1987 and with the WPC.27625/0912objective to root out ragging in all its forms from technicalinstitutions, Universities, including deemed to be Universitiesimparting technical education in the country, by prohibiting itby law, preventing its occurrence and to punish those whoindulge in ragging in spite of the prohibition. It also providesfor preventive action. Those regulations were triggered by thesuperlative directions issued in public interest by the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India on the basis of the report of thecommittee constituted by that Court to suggest remedialmeasures to root out the problem of ragging in educationalinstitutions. Those notifications provide, in Regulation No.8,that the punishment to be meted out to the persons indulgingin ragging has to be exemplary and justifiably harsh to act as adeterrent against recurrence of such incidents and thestudents who are found to have indulged in ragging should bedebarred from taking admission in any technical institution inIndia. Without exception, the institutional authorities are toreport every single incident of ragging to the police authorities WPC.27625/0913for registration of First Information Report. Depending uponthe nature and gravity of the offence as established by theAnti-Ragging Committee of the institution, the possiblepunishments for those found guilty of ragging at the institutionlevel shall be any one or any combination of the differentpunishments enumerated in those regulations. They include'rustication from the institution for a period ranging from 1 to4 semesters'. It needs to be, therefore, noticed that thepunished handed down to the petitioners are within thatframe. With that, the mere fact that the Kerala Act providesfor dismissal only on the basis of conviction under that Act is ofno consequence and the mere reference made to the KeralaAct in the impugned order, in no manner, takes away thejurisdiction of the Principal to have imposed the impugnedpunishment.19.Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners furtherargued, referring to the judgments of this Court in WPC.27625/0914P.M.Kurian v. Principal, Government Victoria College,Palghat [1967 KLT 97] and in P.M.Kurien v. P.S.Raghavan& Others [1969 KLT 253] that, in the absence of rules, thePrincipal of a college is incompetent to punish a student anddisciplinary proceedings cannot but be in consonance withprinciples of natural justice and domestic enquiry has to beappropriately held. It is argued that it was insufficient that theenquiry concluded with the report which was not thereafterput to the petitioners. 20.The allegations which led to the aforesaid precedents cited onbehalf of the petitioners, related to a student who was allegedto have resorted to mal-practices during the annualexaminations. In the latter judgment, this Court consideredthe issues after noticing that the student therein had earliersought relief, that led to the earlier decision. WPC.27625/091521. In so far as the realm of domestic enquiry and disciplinarymatters is concerned, there is no doubt that rules of naturaljustice have to be followed. Fairness is an inexcusable elementof all proceedings which result in deprivation of freedom toenjoy certain rights, including the right to be imparted withinstructions in a college. The AICTE Act, 1987 empowers theframing of regulations. The directions issued by the ApexCourt in matters relating to ragging were issued in publicinterest and with immediate requirement, having regard to thedevastating effect that ragging has in the field of educationand in campus. They are plenary directions. It needs to berecalled that even in anticipation of regulations, the ApexCourt had issued directions to regulate the field of educationin that regard. The regulations under consideration is notunder challenge. The validity of those regulations are notimpugned. They are statutory. As already noticed, it providesspecifically for the imposition of punishments which areenumerated therein, which include the punishment imposed on WPC.27625/0916the petitioners. The imposition of punishment has to be madedepending upon the nature and gravity of the offence, asestablished by the Anti-Ragging Committee of the institution.As already noted, the constitution of the committee is notchallenged. Its competence is not challenged and no vitiatingattribute is made against that committee.22.With this, it has to be noted that the proceedings being interms of statutory regulations, rules of natural justice cannotbe imposed to say that the report of the committee ought tohave been again put to the petitioners, before the Principaltook a decision on the basis of that report, because thestatutory regulations themselves oblige the Principal to handdown the punishment based on the report of the committee.23.In so far as the quality of the enquiry is concerned, it hasalready been noted that the statements of the students wererecorded; relevant questions were put to them and answers WPC.27625/0917elicited. Having regard to the nature of the enquiry, it is notthe requirement to have any further hearing on the basis ofthat report made by the committee after due enquiry. Theenquiry and the imposition of the impugned punishment are,therefore, not vitiated on any count.24.From the aforesaid, it also needs to be noticed that thepetitioners are facing proceedings before the criminal court.The quality of appreciation of materials in an enquiry underthe Regulations, essentially rests on preponderance ofprobabilities and it would not, in any manner, impair thepetitioners' defence at trial, in the criminal case. It is soclarified.25. The appreciation of evidence by the committee has alreadybeen found to be reasonable and no attribute as toarbitrariness or perversity sustains against it. The findingsand the punishment, therefore, stands. WPC.27625/0918In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is accordinglydismissed. No costs. Sd/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,Judge.kkb.21/12.The word “dump” occurring in the 2nd line of the 2ndparagraph and 9th line of 12th paragraph and the word“punished” occurring in the penultimate sentence of the 18thparagraph of the judgment dated 22.12.2009 in WP(C).27625/2009 are corrected as “dumb” and “punishments”respectively vide Suo Motu order dated 15.01.2010 in WP(C).27625/2009. Sd/-Registrar (Judicial)