1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.3920 of 2011 P.Chandradasan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Mahakavi Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology Kovil Nagar, Naranapuram Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Anna University, Represented by its Registrar, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records passed by the first respondent in his letter dated 22.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to allow the petitioner to pursue his B.E., degree course in the first respondent college. For petitioner ...Mr.M.Padmavathy For Respondents ...Mr.M.Sathiamoorthy For R-1 for R-2 ...No appearance O R D E R It is an unfortunate case where the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 22.03.2011, an order dismissing him from the first respondent college. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after completion of Diploma, he has joined the second respondent University in B.E., (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) directly to the second year by lateral entry in the year 2009. Presently, he is doing his third year. Since he is residing in Trichy, he is in the hostel. The first year hostel building is separately located and the hostel for second, third and fourth year students are separately located. On 16.03.2011, there was a clash among the first year students of the Mechanical Branch and Civil Branch. After hearing noise from the first year hostel, the petitioner along with other senior students went there and found that there was clash between the first year students. 2.1. Thereafter the first respondent declared holidays from 17.03.2011 to 25.03.2011 and all the hostilities were directed to leave https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the hostel. While so, a telegram dated 19.03.2011 was sent by the first respondent, to the petitioner's father asking him to appear for an enquiry on 21.03.2011. Since the telegram has reached only on 21.03.2011, he and his father appeared before the disciplinary committee on 23.03.2011. The disciplinary committee did not conduct any enquiry as to why the petitioner and his father were directed to meet the first respondent. However, in compliance of the telegram, they met the first respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner was directed to get the Transfer Certificate, stating that he has been dismissed from the College. 2.2. Subsequently a letter was received from the first respondent on 26.03.2011 stating that due to the untoward incident happened in the college, he has been dismissed on the recommendation of the disciplinary committee. Another letter of the first respondent posted on 23.03.2011 was communicated to him stating that the college re-opens on 24.03.2011. He and his father appeared before the first respondent, but they were insisted to get the transfer certificate. Though the petitioner and his father requested the first respondent to allow him to continue the course, he was not permitted. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court by challenging the order of the first respondent. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein, the following facts have been set out: The petitioner is a gang leader of a particular community. The petitioner pre-planned the clash to attack the first year students of the other community. They ransacked the first year students hostel and also caused damage to the college properties worth about Rs.20,000/-. A complaint was lodged for the same. The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the scene of occurrence and pacify the students. 3.1. A disciplinary committee was constituted consisting of Head Of Departments. The committee informed the involved students to report before the disciplinary committee on 21.03.2011 over phone including the petitioner. His father was also informed through cell phone on 19.03.2011 to attend the disciplinary committee along with his son. That apart, a telegram has been sent to the petitioner's father regarding the enquiry before the disciplinary committee. Neither the petitioner nor his father appeared for the enquiry on 21.03.2011. On 22.03.2011, the petitioner's father appeared before the disciplinary committee and he has been informed about the committee's decision. The disciplinary committee has taken proper evidence and statement from the injured students. The disciplinary committee thus given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and his father. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal for the writ petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University. 5. It is the case of the first respondent that there was a clash on 16.03.2011 at the first year students hostel. It is stated that the petitioner and other students caused injury to the first year students and also caused damage to the college properties. It is also stated that the petitioner and his father was informed about the enquiry by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 disciplinary committee. It is stated that a telegram has been sent on 19.03.2011 to the petitioner's father informing him that an enquiry would be conducted by the disciplinary committee on 21.03.2011. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner's father and the students were informed about the enquiry by the disciplinary committee through phone message. However, it is stated by the petitioner that the telegram has reached them only on 21.03.2011 and hence he and his father came to the college on 22.03.2011. They have been directed to meet the first respondent and the first respondent, in turn, has directed them to get the Transfer Certificate. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the dismissal order passed against this petitioner has been done after following due process of law. Even assuming that the telegram has been sent to the petitioner, which has reached the petitioner well in advance before the date of the enquiry by the disciplinary committee, I am of the considered view that the disciplinary committee has not conducted any enquiry in a way which it was expected to do so. It seems that statements have been obtained from the injured students behind the back of the petitioner. That apart a mere statement from the students, who have injured alone will not be sufficient to hold that a proper enquiry has been conducted. Further more, a statement that has been enclosed along with the typed set did not disclose that they have made any allegations against the petitioner. In none of the statements, the name of the petitioner finds place. However, a list has been enclosed along with the statements made by them. In my considered opinion, when the statement given by the students, who have been said to be injured in the incident, do not mention about the students who caused injury, the alleged list of names given by them in the annexure may not be sufficient. 7. That apart I am of the considered view that even assuming that the petitioner or his father did not appear for enquiry on 21.03.2011, one more opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to attend for an enquiry along with his father. Further more, the report of the disciplinary committee at page No.4 of the typed set filed by the first respondent discloses that there is a manipulation with regard to the date of enquiry. Originally, the date of enquiry seems to be 17, which was later altered as 21 in the green ink. That apart, regarding the appearance of the father on 22.03.2011 also, it is in 'Hand-written', after scoring certain portions. In view of the same, it creates a doubt in the mind of this Court whether an enquiry was conducted properly or not. One more aspect that has to be seen is that in the report filed along with the typed set, it is stated that the committee has sent a notice to the students involved in the incident on 16.03.2011. Nowhere in the counter affidavit, it is stated by the first respondent that such notice was sent to the students involved in the incident. It is not even the case of the first respondent that notice has been sent to the students involved in the incident on 16.03.2011. 8. Thus, considering the overall circumstances, I am of the considered view that no proper enquiry has been conducted by the disciplinary committee. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view, that interest of justice would meet, if the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from the College is set aside and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 remand the matter to the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after due notice to the petitioner and after following due procedure of law. However, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner really involved in such incident, the same cannot be appreciated. The petitioner, who has gone to the College only for his studies and not for infight in the college in the name of 'caste, community or religion'. I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition only on the ground that proper enquiry has not been conducted by the disciplinary committee. This shall not show a wrong signal to the petitioner that he has achieved and succeed the whole world by getting an order from this Court in his favour. I make it very clear that I am not giving any seal of approval for whatever incident that has happened in the college. There may not be two opinion that such incident shall not occur in the college either in name of 'caste or community or religion'. I hope that the petitioner has to understand clearly that if anything happens well within the college, by his behaviour, he is spoiling his own career. Keeping in mind this view, I hope that if at all he has involved himself in any incident in the college, he should realise for it and feel shy of the same. He is also expected to tender apology., instead as stated already, thinking that he has conquered everything, he shall not appear before the disciplinary committee. 9. With this observation, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The first respondent is at liberty to direct the disciplinary committee to hold an enquiry afresh, after following the due process of law. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to attend the classes till a decision is taken by the disciplinary committee. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Principal Mahakavi Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology Kovil Nagar, Naranapuram Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Registrar, Anna University, Tirunelveli. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Sathiamoorthy, Advocate, SR No.19984 + 1 cc to M/s.M.Padmavathy, Advocate, SR No.19990 W.P.(MD) No.3920 of 2011 24.06.2011 RR RJ/11.7.11 (IT) 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/