IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 18-12-2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.26532 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 to 6 of 2008 M.Kugapriyan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Registrar Pondicherry University Kalapet,Puducherry 2. The Principal Indira Gandhi College of Arts and Science Kathirkamam, Puducherry. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in No.0003/IGCAS/ACA/2007 Dt.24.01.2008 suspending the petitioner and the communication of the 2nd respondent in No.0003/IGCAS/ACA/2008 dated 4.3.2008 dropping the petitioner from the roll of the 2nd respondent college and the proceedings of the 1st respondent herein in Letter No. PU/AS-II/ ACG-II/2008-09/270 dated 11/09/2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent herein in Letter No. No.0003/IGCAS/ACA/2008 dated 19.9.2008, quash the same and for a direction to the 1st respondent to admit the petitioner in the V Semester in this academic year (2008-2009) and to permit the petitioner to write the university semester examinations in this academic year 2008-2009. For Petitioner :- Mr.A.Stalin For Respondents :- Mr.A.V.Bharathi for R1 Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R2 O R D E R Though originally, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.9.2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.9.2008 with a further direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner in the V semester in this academic year (2008 -2009) and to permit the petitioner to write the university semester examinations in the present academic year 2008- 2009, later the petitioner filed an application for amendment and now https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner is to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.1.2008 suspending the petitioner and the communication of the second respondent dated 4.3.2008 dropping the petitioner from the roll of the second respondent College and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.9.2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.9.2008 and quash the same and for the direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner in the V Semester in the academic year 2008-2009 and permit the petitioner to write the university semester examinations for the said academic year. 2. The facts in nutshell are set out here-under:- (a) The petitioner hails from a most oppressed section of the society. He enrolled himself as a student of B.Com (Foreign Trade) a three year degree course at Indira Gandhi College of Arts and Science, Kathirkamam, Puducherry in the academic year 2006-2007. The petitioner along with three other students were suspended from the college by the second respondent by his proceedings dated 24.1.2008. It is stated in the said letter that a lecturer has reported that the petitioner along with three other students had misbehaved in the class room and the enquiry were under process and hence they were suspended with immediate effect. It has not been explained in the said letter as to what is the act of the petitioner which amounted to misbehaviour. (b) The second respondent also sent a letter dated 24.1.2008 to his father regarding his suspension. However, the mother of the petitioner had met the second respondent and pleaded with the authorities to show mercy. But the second respondent insisted that his father must meet them. On 21.2.2008 the petitioner's father came to his college and met the second respondent. The second respondent insisted his father to advise the petitioner to tender an apology to his class teachers. The petitioner obliged and tendered his unconditional apology to his class teachers on the very same day itself. While so, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 4.3.2008 has stated that the parents did not meet the class teachers on the matter pertaining to discipline of the petitioner and lack of attendance. It has been informed that the petitioner had been dropped from the roll of the College and he is not eligible for attending the University semester examinations. (c) The petitioner's father again met the respondents and asked them to show mercy. On 22.7.2008, the petitioner's father gave a representation to the second respondent in this regard. The second respondent sent a letter to the first respondent asking for certain clarifications. The Assistant Registrar gave a clarification to the second respondent by his letter dated 11.9.2008 that in case of readmission, the petitioner will have to redo the course from the IVth semester, when he was removed from the rolls, provided he is not issued with the T.C by the College. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) On 19.9.2008 the second respondent issued a letter to his father stating that the petitioner has to redo the B.Com course from the IV semester which would commence during January 2009. Hence the petitioner challenging those proceedings has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3.(a) Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein several irregularities committed by the petitioner have been set out. Further it has been stated that on 5.10.2007, the petitioner along with his some of this classmates has indulged in physical violence with the B.C.A.Students in the College premises itself. Hence by memorandum dated 5.10.2007, the petitioner as well as seven others were suspended until further orders and they were directed not to enter the college at any cost. The Disciplinary Committee of the College has sent letters for conducting an enquiry. After hearing the seven students including the petitioner, the Disciplinary Committee has found them guilty. Thereafter, all the seven students including the petitioner have accepted the findings of the committee and apologised to the second respondent and given separate letters on 17.10.2007 requesting to revoke the suspension orders and allow them to attend the classes. Thereafter, the orders of suspension were cancelled . (b) Again on 24.1.2008 a lady lecturer has complained that the petitioner along with three of his classmates has been misbehaving in her class. Hence by proceedings dated 24.1.2008 the College has suspended the petitioner and others and directed that they should not enter the College Campus from that day. In the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee, all the other three students along with their parents have attended, tendered their apology and given separate letters of apology to the College. Hence the suspension orders were revoked against them. However, the petitioner and his parents have not even appeared in the Disciplinary Enquiry and not submitted any letter of apology to the College. Hence by letter dated 4.3.2008 the College has stated the same and also about his lack of attendance and informed the petitioner that he is dropped from the rolls of the College and he is not eligible to write the University semester examinations. The said letter was duly received by one of the family members of the petitioner. (c) Even after the said letter, on 25.3.2008 the petitioner had entered into the College campus by wearing a cloth mask around his face in this Motor Cycle along with two other students and attacked the students of the II year B.Sc., Biotechnology course. The injured were admitted in the Hospital. Immediately, one of the students gave a complaint on 25.3.2008. On 26.3.2008 and 27.3.2008 all the students of the second respondent College went on strike, demanding the dismissal of the petitioner and three other students involved in the above violent incident from the College. Further all the girl students of the College met the Hon'ble Chief Minister and represented to him that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is no security for them in the College and requested him to take immediate action.The petitioner and his parents did not appear before the said Disciplinary Committee.Long thereafter, on 22.7.2008, the petitioner along with his father has met the second respondent and his father gave a letter dated 22.7.2008 stating among other things that the petitioner would not involve in any unruly acts. (d) Thus,in spite of all the misbehaviours and misconducts, considering the matter sympathetically a letter dated 6.8.2008 had been sent to the first respondent University informing that the petitioner is short of attendance and requesting the first respondent to clarify as to whether he can be permitted to write the 5th semester examinations without attending the IVth semester examinations or he has to re-do the IVth semester. By letter dated 11.9.2008, the University has informed the second respondent that only in case of readmission of the petitioner he has to re-do the course etc and stated that for re-admission a formal request of the student duly recommended and forwarded by the Principal should be sent to the University with required details. Thereafter the Disciplinary Committee considering that the career of the petitioner should not be disrupted and with a hope that he will behave well and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the College till he completes the course, resolved to readmit him. (e) Based on the said resolution the College has sent a memorandum dated 19.9.2008 referring to the letter dated 11.9.2008 sent by the University, the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the College to readmit the petitioner in the IV semester from January 2009 and informed that he has to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- for revival of admission and Rs.874/- towards tuition fee to attend the classes. Since there was no response from the petitioner, further action could not be taken by the College. (f) At this stage the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. Absolutely there is no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner was not having the required attendance of 75% to write the IVth semester examinations. Further, he has not submitted the application nor he has paid the examination fee. He has also not attended classes for the 5th semester even for a day. Hence he is not eligible to write the 5th semester examinations. Thus the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On the above pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents have made their submissions. 5. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.A.Stalin is that when the petitioner had been placed under suspension by letter dated 24.1.2008 alleging misbehaviour in the class room without elaborating the same, the College authorities ought to have framed charges against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him, conducted an enquiry and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter should have passed the final order. But, unfortunately, the college authorities did not follow the established principles of law and dropped the name of the petitioner from the roll of the College by proceedings dated 4.3.2008 and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the College would submit that the petitioner along with other students have indulged in so many unlawful activities. However, the second respondent taking lenient view, even though the impugned order dated 4.3.2008 had been passed dropping the petitioner from the College and he is not eligible to attend the University semester examinations, by proceedings dated 19.9.2008 informed the petitioner's father that his son the petitioner herein would be readmitted in the College and hence a sum of Rs.1000/- towards revival of admission and Rs.847/- towards tuition fee have to be paid to attend the classes. 7. The question that now arises for consideration is whether proper enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in relation to the several incidents pointed out by the college authorities. There cannot be any two opinions that the students shall behave properly in the College. They cannot conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming of a student. Misbehaving in the class room or within the college campus would not only tarnish the image of the College, but also it would affect the entire student community who undergo their courses in the College. An act by one or two or by a collective number of students shall not cause disturbance to either the teachers or the students community. The parents of the students, especially the parents, who hails from a poor background are taking earnest steps in educating their children, foregoing not only their comforts but also their daily food. When such is the situation, especially in the present case, where the petitioner alleges that he is hailing from a poor background, he is expected to fulfill the aspirations of his parents by conducting himself properly without giving room for any acts unbecoming of a student. 8. Thus, as stated already, if the petitioner had misbehaved in the manner in which it has been stated in the counter affidavit, he cannot be allowed to go scot free. However, it is sorry state of affair that though several allegations have been made against the petitioner no proper enquiry has been conducted against him. An order of suspension seems to have passed on 24.1.2008 alleging that the petitioner along with other students misbehaved in the class room. It is not even stated in the said order of suspension as to what is the act of misbehaviour of the petitioner along with other students in the class room. More strange is the order dated 4.3.2008 dropping the petitioner from the roll of the College. It would be useful to extract the order dated 4.3.2008 which is a few line order hereunder: L.Kugapriyan, who is studying in II year B.Com (Foreign Trade) in this college, was suspended with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effect from 24.1.2008. The parents did not meet the class teachers on the matter pertaining to Discipline of their son and lack of attendance. It is informed that he is dropped from the roll of this College and is not eligible for attending the University Semester Examinations." 9. It merely says that the petitioner was suspended from 24.1.2008 and the parents did not meet the class teachers on the matter pertaining to the Discipline of their son and there is a lack of attendance and hence he has been dropped from the roll of the College and he is not eligible for attending the University Semester Examinations. The College authorities seems to have acted in a lethargic manner not taking serious view of the allegations made against the petitioner. This Court would have given second thought over the matter had the authorities considered the matter and conducted proper enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner. But, unfortunately, the College authorities did not proceed with the matter as they are expected to do so and had dealt with the matter in a casual manner. 10. I have even called for the files from the College authorities and it does not disclose that an enquiry which is expected of was conducted by the College touching the allegations of misbehaviour of the petitioner. It is not sufficient that a complaint against the petitioner alone would satisfy the ends of justice. It is expected that a fair enquiry should have been conducted on the allegations made against the petitioner about his misbehaviour in the College and also with other students and teachers. 11. Further more, the College authorities seems to have addressed a letter to the University whether the petitioner can be taken to the next semester i.e 5th semester. After getting approval from the Registrar of the University, it has been communicated to the petitioner's father that the petitioner would be readmitted in the College on the condition that he will well behave and abide by the rules and regulation of the College till he completes the course and that he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.1000/- towards revival of admission and Rs.847/- towards tuition fees. 12. As stated already, the College authorities did not take serious view of the matter and dealt with the matter in a casual manner. The inaction of the College authorities had given room for the petitioner to file the present writ petition challenging the orders of the college authorities. Had there been an enquiry in a proper way it would not have given room to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the College. 13. In S.BRIGHT SINGH VS. THE BHARATHIAR UNIVESITY AND OTHERS (1994 Writ L.R. 768), a Division Bench of this Court while considering the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissal of a student indulged in ragging has set aside the order of dismissal on the ground of failure to conduct due enquiry and observance of principles of natural justice. Paragraph 6 of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:- 6. Now let us proceed to examine whether the second respondent in the present case, has fulfilled the minimum requirements of natural justice as pointed out by the Apex Court in the decision referred above, before passing the order dated 8.9.1992 dismissing the appellant from the college. Admittedly, in the present case, no charge was framed against the appellant, not to speak of handing over the same to the appellant and that no opportunity was given to the appellant to state whatever he had to say in writing. The appellant was not put on notice about the acts of misconduct alleged against him and he was not given an opportunity to state his case. Another significant fact which cannot be lost sight of in the present case is that the impugned order does not even refer to the enquiry conducted by the enquiry committee appointed by the second respondent on 7.9.1992 and the finding of the enquiry committee. A perusal of the file produced by the Learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent and the minutes of the enquiry committee meeting held on 7.9.1992 shows that the enquiry committee first recorded the statements of three affected students who were subjected to ragging and harassment that thereafter the appellant was sent for by the enquiry committee and he was identified by the three affected students and that when the appellant was asked to give a statement by the enquiry committee admitting the guilt, he refused to give any statement before enquiry committee. As already pointed out that in the present case, on the basis of the statements recorded from the three affected students the appellant was not served with any charge memo and he was not asked to state his case by submitting his explanation. We are of the view tht the minimum and basic requirements of the principles of natural justice are (a) notice of the case not be met and (b) reasonable opportunity to explain. On a careful examination of the minutes of the enquiry committee meeting held on 7.9.1992 and the order dated 8.9.1992 passed by the second respondent dismissing the appellant from the college, we are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inclined to hold that both the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice referred above are not fulfilled by the second respondent before passing the order dated 8.9.1992, because the second respondent admittedly failed to secure reasonable opportunity to the appellant and serving a charge memo on the appellant and asking him to state his case with regard to the allegations levelled against him. Therefore, it has to be held that the enquiry in the present case and the punishment of expulsion imposed on the appellant by the order dated 8.9.1992 is clearly vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice." Again in para 9 the Division Bench has held thus:- "... In these circumstances, inasmuch as no written charge memo was handed over to the appellant asking him to state whatever he had to state in writing in respect of the charges levelled against him and no opportunity was given to the appellant to meet the case put against him, we have no hesitation in holding that the order dted 8.9.1992 dismissing the appellant from the college was passed by the second respondent without fulfilling the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is illegal and liable to be quashed. On a careful consideration of the minutes of the enquiry committee meeting held on 7.9.1992, the nature of the enquiry conducted in the present case, and the materials available on record, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent that there is substantial compliance of the requirements of the principles of natural justice before the second respondent passed the order dated 8.9.1992 and that the said order is not violative of the principles of natural justice and illegal. Point Number 1 is answered accordingly. 14. In T.C. PETER VS. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP BY ITS SECRETARY (AIR 1978 MADRAS 87) the Division Bench has also taken a similar view and paragraph 8 is is usefully extracted hereunder:- "8. We do notice that in this case the invigilator has clearly stated about the action of the student. The statements of the other invigilator and the Supervisor do not support fully or to a substantial extent the statements made by the particular invigilator. The appellant has denied the whole incident and has given a totally different https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ version. In these circumstances, we are certainly entitled to be satisfied that the authority, with the power to punish the student, has applied its mind to the relevant facts of the case before taking a decision, especially a decision of such a drastic nature as the one in this case. We have extracted the minutes of the meeting which merely states the decision. Whether the authority had applied its mind to the solitary statement of the invigilator, which has been denied by the appellant, and chose, notwithstanding the denial, to rely on his statement, and whether, in the circumstances of the case, a further probe or scrutiny or even an enquiry was necessary in the interests of justice and to satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice, we are not able to discern, in view of the manner in which the matter has been dealt with and apparently closed. This we consider is unsatisfactory, and the decision taken in this manner cannot stand. Principles of natural justice will not exhaust themselves merely by granting an opportunity to the person charged to state his case. Judicial process continues till the end and judicial mind must be applied to the relevant facts in a judicial manner, and we must be able to discern from the records made available to us that this has been done. Then only principles of natural justice will be satisfied. We are not so satisfied in this case and therefore we set aside the decision arrived at by the respondent (Union Public Service Commission). 15. In yet another decision reported in 1998 Writ L.R 9 ( Mathews Ashwanth Goveas Vs. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai 25 and others), in paragraph 20 it has been held thus: "20. Even at the outset, I expressed that had the third respondent considering the gravity of the charge chosen to dispense with the enquiry and passed an order of rustication, that is a different matter. Having appointed an Enquiry Officer after one month from the date of incident and the Enquiry Officer having issued notices t the petitioners for participation in the enquiry, a duty is cast on the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority to give full opportunity to the petitioners to participate and defend their case effectively. I have also demonstrated the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the earlier occasion, namely, 1994 Writ L.R.768 cited supra in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of the same college. In which the punishment of expulsion imposed on the appellant by the College/Management was set aside on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. When they are having a decision of this Court in their hands, I do not know how the same mistake has been committed by the Disciplinary Authority and the college. I am also unable to countenance the action of the third respondent in not communicating the charge or charges to the petitioners, appointment