IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33381 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ABDUL BASIL NALAKATHU, ROLL NO.B 090420 AR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 2. KRISHNA KIRAN P., ROLL NO.B.090120 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 3. MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN K.A., ROLL NO.B.090362 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 4. SHEREEF T.P., ROLL NO.B.090878 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 5. B.MANIDEEP REDDY, ROLL NO.B.0900929 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 6. ANEESH S.MANTHANATHU, ROLL NO.B.090749 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, CALICUT P.O., PIN-673001. 2. THE SENETE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN CALICUT P.O., 673 001. sts WP(C)NO.33381/2010 3. THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED VIDE ORDER DO/STUD. MISC/10 DATED 16/08/2010, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, IST FLOOR, OFSHORE LABORATORY, DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT P.O., PIN-673001. 4. DR.M.A.NAZEER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLGOY, CALICUT P.O., 673001. 5. ANJUM NAVEED, ROLL NO.B.100436 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-327 DO. DO.673 001 6. AJU NIVAS, ROLL NO.B.100483 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-340, DO. DO.673 001 7. ARAVIND P.MOHAN, ROLL NO.B.100896 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-239, DO. DO.PIN- 673 001 8. FEBIN SEBY, ROLL NO.B.100374 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-309, DO. DO.673 001 9. RAJEEV RAMAKRISHNAN, ROLL NO.B.100889 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-249, DO. DO.673 001 10. P.A.DILEEP KUMAR, ROLL NO.B.100776 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-249, DO. DO.673 001 11. SABIR KARYAT, ROLL NO.B.100471 AR, HOSTEL ROOM NO.PGI-337, DO. DO.673 001 R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R5 TO R 11 BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33381/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER REF.NO.DO/STU.MISC/ 10 DATED 11/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/08/2010 ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR BY THE PETITIONERS. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/08/2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS PARENTS. P4 COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.01/09/2010VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/ 2010/1. P4(A) COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 01/09/2010 VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/ 2010/6. P4(B) COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES DT.01/09/2010 VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/2010/5. P4(C) COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.01/09/2010 VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/2010/4. P4(D) COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.01/09/2010 VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/2010/8. P4(E) COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.01/09/2010 VIDE NO.NITC/PS/SD/ENQUIRY/2010/10. P5 COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION BY 1ST PETITIONER DT.07/09/2010. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DO/STUD.MISC/10 DT.14/09/2010. P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.21/09/2010 TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 01/10/2010. P9 COPY OF THE STUDENTS CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY CODE-2007. P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER DT.NIL. P11 COPY OF THE PRINT OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE PRINT OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS. P14 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 21/12/2010. P15 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/08/2010. P16 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.1897/2010 & CM NO.9422/2010 DT. 8TH SEPT.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. sts WP(C)NO.33381/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 9/8/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS STUDENTS TO THE HOSTEL WARDEN. R1(B) COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE BASED ON EXHIBIT R1(A) COMPLAINT. R1(C) COPY OF THE SECOND ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 13/9/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33381 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners who were 3rd semester B. Arch students at the National Institute of Technology, Calicut are seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P6, by which the petitioners were placed under suspension and punished by suspending them for the period mentioned in Ext.P6 order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ext.P9 in the writ petition is the students' Conduct and Disciplinary Code 2007 framed by the first respondent, which regulates conduct of the students. Section 6 enumerates the misconducts and section 7 provides the disciplinary sanctions. In so far as it is relevant, for the purpose of this case on 9.8.2010, the Chief Warden of the hostel of the first respondent received Ext.R1(a) series of complaints submitted by respondents 5 to 11 who are Ist year students. In these complaints respondents alleged various acts of misconducts on the part of the petitioners and certain other students. On receipt of the complaints, on 10.8.2010, the Chief Warden constituted a Committee of 7 members from the staff to conduct WPC.No. 33381/2010 :2 : an enquiry into the allegations of misconducts. Accordingly, the committee enquired into the allegations, questioned the petitioners, the alleged victims and other students and submitted Ext.R1(b) report. In the report, they found that 13 students were ragged in the college hostel and that the complaints filed by respondents 5 to 11 were genuine. Thereafter the committee recommended suspension of the delinquents for a minimum period of one semester and to expel them from the hostels. It is to be noted that this report was made after questioning respondents 5 to 11, who reiterated their allegations before the Enquiry Committee. Accepting Ext.R1(b) report, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 order dated 11th August, 2010, suspending 11 students including the petitioners herein for a minimum period of one year. It was also ordered that case shall be referred to the police for further action. 3. Counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that on the issuance of Ext.P1 order of suspension, Exts.P2 and P3 representations were made by the students and their parents on 16.8.2010 where they requested for a re-enquiry. It is stated that on receipt of Exts.P2 and P3, first respondent constituted a committee of two Professors and two Assistant Professors to WPC.No. 33381/2010 :3 : conduct a re-enquiry into the matter. After due deliberations, the committee issued Ext.P4 series of memo of charges to the petitioners in which various allegations of misconducts which also amounted to ragging as defined under the Act, are incorporated. On receipt of Ext.P4 series of memo of charges the petitioners submitted their explanations, a specimen copy of which is Ext.P5. In the explanation submitted, they denied the allegations and requested that they be exonerated of the charges and that the suspension may be cancelled with retrospective effect. Ext.R1(c) is the report submitted by the Committee. This report also shows that notice was issued not only to the complainants but also to the petitioners and that after recording their statements, verifying all previous documents, the Committee submitted the report with its findings and recommendations. The report was considered by the first respondent, the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary authority thereafter issued Ext.P6 dated 14th September, 2010, which shows that petitioners 1,2,4,5 and 6 were imposed punishment of suspension up to 14.9.2010 and the 3rd petitioner was suspended for the period up to 24.9.2010. On the issuance of Ext.P6 order of punishment, Ext.P7 representation was made by the parent of one of the petitioners requesting that WPC.No. 33381/2010 :4 : he be permitted to appear for the 3rd and 4th semesters, if he has 80% attendance excluding the suspension period. It is stated that thereafter they also submitted Ext.P8 appeal against Ext.P6 order of punishment. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P6 and to direct the first respondent to grant attendance to the petitioners from the date of Ext.P1 or to exclude the said period while calculating 80% attendance for the purpose of writing the 3rd semester examination. 4. According to the petitioners, they did not indulge in any act of ragging or committed any misconducts in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P9. It is further stated that when the matter was referred to the police, police summoned respondent 5 to 11 and that in the statements given before the police respondents 5 to 11 denied the allegation that they were subjected any act of ragging. It is stated that on that basis the case which was registered against them was referred by the police and therefore the case having lost its very foundation, the proceedings initiated against them is unsustainable. It is on that basis petitioners seeks to quash Exts.P1 and P6. 5. At the stage of admission this court passed an interim order dated 9.11.2010 directing respondents 1 to 3 to allow the WPC.No. 33381/2010 :5 : petitioners to appear in 3rd semester examination. On that basis petitioners appeared for the examination, but however their results are withheld. 6. At the outset, it should be stated that Ext.R1(b) is the enquiry report on the basis of which the petitioners were placed under suspension. Ext.R1(b) enquiry report shows that misconducts as defined Ext.P9 conduct rules have been found against the petitioners. It is also to be stated that before submitting Ext.R1(c) report, the Committee had issued Ext.P4 series of memo of charges to the delinquents. Thereafter notice was issued by the committee, not only to the petitioners but also to respondents 5 to 11, the victims. Although it is a fact that when the police questioned them, respondents 5 to 11 contended that they were not ragged and that this contention was reiterated before this court also, before the enquiry committees on both occasions, the victims had reiterated their allegations as evidenced by Exts.R1(a) complaint made by them on 9.8.2010. It is based on those statements and deposition made and other evidence collected and available before the Committee, that the Committee submitted Ext.R1(c) report. Having gone through the reports and the findings contained WPC.No. 33381/2010 :6 : therein, I am inclined to take the view that the Committee cannot be said to have committed any procedural irregularities nor can this court hold that the Committee has entered into any factual finding which can be criticized as perverse. If this be the situation, the findings will have to be upheld and further question that arises for consideration is whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, as per Ext.P6 can be said to be a disproportionate one warranting to be interfered with this court. 7. Ext.P9 is the rules governing the students. Section 7 of Ext.P9 lists out the disciplinary sanctions. Section 7(1) deals with the minor sanctions and Section 7(2) contains the major sanctions. The major sanctions provided are debarring from examinations, suspension, restitution, forfeiture and expulsion. Among the punishments enumerated under Section 7(11), there is no punishment which can be said to be lesser than what is imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is a disproportionate one. True, petitioners relied on Ext.P16 judgment. In Ext.P16 judgment rendered, the Delhi High Court interfered with an order wherein the students were found to have committed ragging and were WPC.No. 33381/2010 :7 : expelled. First of all, in this case petitioners have not been found guilty of ragging but they have been found guilty of misconducts as defined in Ext.P9. More over a close reading of Ext.P16 judgment shows that the petitioners in Ext.P16 were expelled from the college and on the ground that the punishment imposed was disproportionate the Court interfered with it. In this case the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate and consequently, the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court cannot be of any application to the facts of the case. 8. As far as the contention that the criminal case has been referred is concerned, that development would have had impact on the proceedings against the petitioners provided, they were punished on allegations of ragging as defined under the Act. On the other hand finding in Ext.R1(c) report is that petitioners have committed misconducts as defined in Ext.P9, the Conduct Rules that are applicable. Therefore, the fact that police referred the case of ragging can have no significance in so far as the disciplinary proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners are concerned. 9. It is true that the complainants, respondents 5 to 11 have retracted from Ext.R1(a) series of complaints when their WPC.No. 33381/2010 :8 : statements were recorded by the investigating officer. They also reiterated this stand before this court. But however fact remains that both in Ext.R1(a) and when preliminary enquiry and final enquiry were held by the disciplinary committee, they stood by this statements. It was on that basis, Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) reports have been submitted by the Enquiry Committees. Therefore, even if it is assumed that they have later retracted from their statements, that cannot invalidate or upset the findings of the enquiry committees. 10. In the writ petition allegations have been raised against the 4th respondent and according to the petitioners it was at the instance of the 4th respondent, that the entire proceedings were initiated against them. First of all, counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, stating in clear terms that the 4th respondent had nothing to do with the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners. When mala fides are alleged, the burden is heavily upon the person who makes the allegations to prove the same. Apart from making allegations, petitioners have not placed anything implicating the 4th respondent. Although it is true that the 4th respondent has not come forward and filed any affidavit, in the light of dearth of materials supplied by the WPC.No. 33381/2010 :9 : petitioners to support their contention and in the light of the categoric statement made by the first respondent, I am not satisfied that the 4th respondent is guilty of any mala fides. Therefore, I reject the plea of mala fides raised by the petitioners. 11. There is also a contention raised in the writ petition that the petitioners have filed Ext.P8 appeal against the order of punishment imposed on them. However, in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, the stand taken by the first respondent is that such an appeal has not been received by them. Apparently, in view of the statement so filed, in the reply affidavit filed petitioners have stated that they have filed another set of appeal which are pending before the first respondent. As per the terms of the Conduct Rules, if an appeal is filed, the appeal has to be considered by the Senate. If a fresh set of appeals have been filed before the respondents, it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to place it before the Senate. 12. Now that I have upheld the order of punishment and since Ext.P12 regulation prescribes at least 80% attendance for attending the examination, it is obvious that the petitioners have dearth of attendance for writing the examination. Therefore I decline to issue any further directions to publish the result of the WPC.No. 33381/2010 :10 : 3rd semester examination that the petitioners have appeared based on the interim orders of this court. However, it is clarified that in case the appellate authority decides the appeals in favour of the petitioners, appropriate orders shall be passed by the first respondent. 13. Needless to say that the observations herein made about the misconducts committed by the petitioners or other matters, shall not influence the appellate authority which shall deal with the appeals submitted by the petitioners untramelled by any observations in this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/