IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34973 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VAISAKH B.KRISHNAN, B.TECH NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING (S3), COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI - 682 022. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.IYPE SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI - 682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE WARDEN, SIBERIA HOSTEL, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SC COCHIN UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON 21/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing Exts. P1 and P3 and to direct the respondents to revoke Exts. P1 and P3, allowing the petitioner to continue his further studies and also his stay in Siberia Hostel in which he was staying. 2. Petitioner is a III Semester B.Tech student in the 1st respondent University. Petitioner submits that he was served Ext. P1 memo requiring him to vacate his room in the Siberia Hostel and not to enter any of the hostel premises till an enquiry into an incident of ragging is completed. Ext. P1 also discloses that the petitioner was allotted room No. 38 in the hostel for his stay and that in an enquiry that was conducted, it was found that about 7 junior students were made to stay in his room in the hostel. On being served Ext. P1, petitioner submitted Ext. P2 reply denying the allegations and contending that room No. 38 was never allotted to W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 -2- him. He has specifically denied the allegation regarding his involvement in ragging. While the matters stood thus, Ext. P3 memo issued by the Registrar of the University alleging that the petitioner had indulged in ragging the 1st Semester students was served on him and the petitioner was also placed under suspension pending an enquiry. To this, the petitioner's father submitted Ext. P4 reply, once again denying the allegations and requesting to permit the petitioner to continue and complete his studies in the University. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that many reports appeared in the press and elsewhere about the alleged ragging of students by senior students in the Ship Technology Department of the University. It is stated that on account of this, on the orders of the Vice Chancellor an enquiry was conducted into the allegations, by a team consisting of respondents 1 and 2 and the Security Officer which visited the hostels and recorded statements of both the Faculty Members and 1st Semester students. It is stated that several students had narrated the severe mental agony they had undergone on account of W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 -3- the ragging that they suffered in the college and the hostel. It is also stated that at least 4 students had left the college after getting admitted. It is also stated that 3 students abstained from class due to fear of ragging and they had met the Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Head of the Department of Ship Technology and have given complaints in writing that they were subjected to brutal ragging by the 3rd Semester students. 4. Ext. R1(A) is a copy of the submission by these students. It is stated that thereafter the matter was reported to police and Ext. R1(B) is the F.I.R. pursuant to which 10 students have been arrested and have been released on bail. It is stated that based on the preliminary enquiry report 21 students of the 3rd Semester who stayed in the hostel were suspended pending enquiry and the petitioner is one among them. The University refers to Ext. R1(C) order of the Apex Court and also Section 6 of the Cochin University Students (Conduct and Disciplinary) Code 2005, in which it is stated that ragging is prohibited and is penal. It is stated that despite the Apex Court order, and the rules framed by the University, ragging is taking place and that the committee has made its recommendations which are also extracted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 -4- 5. The counter affidavit concludes by saying that it is based on the enquiry committee's report that the petitioner was suspended as it was found that about 7 junior students were forced to stay in the room allotted to the petitioner. The counter also discloses that these students were taken to a hotel where they were forced to drink liquor and that they were asked to dance while a party attended by the senior students was going on. 6. While the petitioner denies his involvement in the incident which led to the issuance of Exts. P1 and P3, the University would contend that based on the allegations they had conducted a detailed enquiry and that it was based on the materials that they have collected, action was taken in accordance with law. 7. In view of the facts as disclosed in the pleadings, it can be seen that the the University has initiated necessary action by getting a crime registered and also initiating disciplinary action against the students. It is true, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's name is not included in the F.I.R. that is produced. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this itself indicates his innocence. But then, since investigation in the case is only at its early stage, it will be too premature to accept this W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 -5- contention and render a judgment on that basis. Irrespective of whether the petitioner is an accused or not, if in the disciplinary proceedings it is found that the petitioner has misconducted himself, that will render the petitioner liable for punishment. Since the disciplinary proceedings in that behalf is also pending and as the petitioner is already placed under suspension, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with this matter, at least at this stage. 8. Necessarily, the enquiry has to be taken to its logical conclusions and the guilt or innocence of the petitioner and others involved has to be decided by the disciplinary authority. This right of the management of the college in this behalf cannot be questioned or curtailed and any interference by this Court, will not be good for maintaining discipline within a campus. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the plea of the counsel for the petitioner for quashing Exts. P1 and P3 or directing that the petitioner be readmitted in the hostel and permitted to continue his studies. In my view, at this stage, this Court will not be justified in doing so. 9. However, the fact remains that it being an issue that affects the future of the student concerned, an expeditious completion of W.P.(C) No. 34973 OF 2007 -6- the proceedings is called for. If the petitioner is ultimately found to be innocent it will be too a harsh punishment to keep him out of the class for a long period. Therefore, the respondents have the obligation to complete the proceedings on an expeditious basis. Therefore, I direct that the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P3 shall be expedited and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above, in all other respects, the writ petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-