IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 AS.No. 583 of 1999(A) --------------------- OS.762/1995 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: -------------- CALICUT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- MURALEEDHARAN E R, EDAKOTH HOUSE PANTHEERANKAVU PO CALICUT -19 ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON 14.01.2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS 801/99 CMP NO.6752 OF 1999 IN AS NO.801 OF 1999 DISMISSED 14.01.2010 SD/-P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- AS NO.583 OF 1999-F ------------------------------------- Dated 14th January 2010 Judgment The defendant in OS No.762/95 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode, who has suffered a money decree, is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the Court below. 2. The plaintiff joined the institution, run by the defendant for undergoing a course in Draughtsman Civil (D-Civil) during the academic year 1994-95, after paying the requisite admission fee, caution deposit etc. The course was of two years' duration. The plaintiff would allege that the defendant had held out that his institution was one of the best of its kind and it had efficient Lecturers and Teachers, to impart education to the students. But the actual state of affairs was to the contrary. When he objected to certain conducts of the Lecturers in the AS 583/99 2 defendant's institution, he became an eyesore. In order to weed him out, a false charge was levelled against him as per Ext.A3 and without conducting any enquiry or following the necessary procedure, he was ultimately expelled from the institution. The plaintiff would say that action was taken against him without following the principles of natural justice and he was not given an opportunity to explain his innocence. 3. The plaintiff denied the allegation that he had committed the act mentioned in the memo of charges and he pointed out that the enquiry was held behind his back and without notice to him. He claimed that the entire proceedings, including the enquiry and the disciplinary action, were void in law and the defendant cannot rely on those items, to justify the action taken by him. Since the plaintiff had already been dispelled from the institution, he limited his claim in the suit to one for damages. 4. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. According to him, the plaintiff was a AS 583/99 3 troubleshooter and used to cause nuisance in the institution and annoyance to his Lecturers. It was found that on 16.06.1995, he, along with two others, had caused damage to a horizontal drafting machine, an equipment used for study in the institution. Therefore, a memo of charges was issued to them and an enquiry was held into those charges, whereupon, it was found that the plaintiff had a role to play in the incident. It was after following the necessary procedures that orders were issued to the plaintiff. The claims of the plaintiff that the facilities provided in the institution were inadequate and the Lecturers were not qualified and were not capable to take classes etc. were false and contrary to facts. His institution has earned a name for itself and it had been in existence for a very long time. In the case of the present nature, the principles of natural justice, as are understood in law, may not have much application. The plaintiff was given ample opportunity to explain his position and it was after taking note of his representation that the enquiry was ordered. In AS 583/99 4 the enquiry, it was found that the plaintiff was one of the persons, who were involved in the mischievous act. Since his companion apologized and tendered an unconditional apology for committing the above said act, he was allowed to continue in the institution. But, the plaintiff and his father remained adamant and created scenes in the institution. So, left with no choice, the institution was given to take the extreme step. The defendant justified his action and contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs. 5. The Court below raised the necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consist of the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A10 from the part of the plaintiff. From the side of the defendant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B14 were marked. On an appreciation of the materials before it, the Court below found as follows : i. The delinquent student had no notice of the enquiry. AS 583/99 5 ii. He was not given an opportunity to make his representation before the appropriate forum. iii. There was nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was involved in the alleged act. Based on the above conclusions, it was found that the act of the defendant in expelling the plaintiff from the institution, cannot be sustained and a decree for a sum of Rs.14,050/- with 10% future interest was granted to the plaintiff. The said Judgment and decree are assailed in this appeal. 6. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any interference is called for by this Court with the Judgment of the Court below. 7. The issue relates to the expulsion of a student from an institution. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had joined the respondent's institution and was undergoing a course there. According to the defendant, he was a mischievous student and had been causing problems in the institution. On the basis of the allegation that on 16.06.1995, in order AS 583/99 6 to cause loss to the institution, he, along with two others, caused damage to a horizontal drafting machine, a charge memo was issued to him. The plaintiff replied to the charge memo. The case of the plaintiff was that thereafter, nothing was heard in the matter except when he was given the final order. He would assert that he had no notice of the enquiry, his statement was not taken into account by the enquiry officer, he was not heard in the matter and finally, he was deprived of an opportunity to establish his innocence. The defendant, on the other hand, would say that proper notice was given to the plaintiff and he had participated in the enquiry. 8. The Court below, after elaborate consideration of the materials before it, found that the so called proceedings is vitiated due to several reasons. The question is, how far the Court below is justified in doing so. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that it is well settled that the Courts should be very slow in interfering with academic matters. The Principal, being the AS 583/99 7 Head of the institution, in order to maintain order and discipline in the institution, he will have to take several harsh steps. It may not be possible in all such cases to follow the procedure including detailed enquiry, notice etc. All that one has to see is whether the delinquent had been afforded a fair opportunity to present his defence. If it is found that the delinquent did have a fair opportunity to present his case, then, the other infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, by itself are not grounds to interfere with the action taken by the Principal, it is contended. 10. One can have no quarrel with regard to the above proposition. Even the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the same. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that atleast an opportunity ought to have been given to the respondent to prove his innocence. There is absolutely no material to show that he had any role to play in the alleged incident. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the fact that on AS 583/99 8 going through the evidence, it can be seen that it is very suspicious that whether an enquiry at all was conducted. In short, the learned counsel pointed out that there is nothing to show that a fair treatment had been given to the plaintiff and that be so, interference is justified. 11. Broadly Principles of Natural Justice take in two aspects - (1) No one shall be condemned unheard and (2) One shall not be the Judge of his own cause. Several other principles have been later evolved in support of the principles of natural justice, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is well settled by now that there is no straight jacket formula regarding the application of the principles of natural justice. There is also no universal law that in all cases, the principles of natural justice should be followed. The application and exclusion of that principle differs, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (See the decisions in N.P.Padmanabhan v. Superintendent of Post Offices AS 583/99 9 (1975 KLT 237), Thampan v. Principal, Medical College, Calicut (1979 KLT 45) and Principal, SN College, Cherthala v. Vice Chancellor (1996(1) KLJ 598). Normally, Courts are very reluctant to interfere in academic matters. It is the prerogative of the Principal of the institution, to take such steps as are necessary to maintain order and discipline in the institution. Some of the steps that may be taken by the Head of the institution may be harsh and severe, but, they may be justified by the circumstances of the case. 12. To be a student, is a privilege. But, that privilege remains only till he behaves like a student. Once he transgresses his limits and indulges in vandalism and hooliganism and becomes a law breaker, he looses that privilege and he has to be dealt with as such. 13. Though the Head of the institution has a lot of discretions in such matters, it is not an absolute one. When the Head of the institution takes a decision, affecting AS 583/99 10 the right of a person, the latter should be given atleast an opportunity to present his case. It is the basic principle in a civilised Society and one need not go in search of the principles of natural justice for the same. The appellant will not be justified in contending for the position that the act done by the Head of the institution cannot be touched when his acts are outside the judicial review. If the conduct of the Head of the institution is so obnoxious and shocking, certainly, interference with it, is justified. While the Head of the institution has got several options and discretions, in applying them, there should be some basis for his acts. In the case on hand, the stand of the defendant is that the delinquent was involved in damaging a costly instrument of the institution. The defendant says that his participation in the said act was established. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the said claim of the defendant is without any basis and does not get support from the evidence on record. AS 583/99 11 14. Totally, three persons were said to be involved in the incident. But, when the charge memo was issued, it was restricted to two persons. The defendant says that an enquiry was conducted. According to the evidence adduced by the defence, a committee consisting of three persons, was constituted to enquire into the allegations raised against the plaintiff and others. Even though the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had participated in the enquiry, the Court below has elaborately considered the available evidence and has come to the conclusion that no notice was issued to the plaintiff regarding the enquiry. 15. It is interesting to note that the Court below has come to the conclusion that if one strictly goes by the evidence on record, the enquiry has been preceded by the charge memo. There is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was informed about the constitution of the enquiry committee or that notice was sent to him to appear before the committee. Ext.B14 is the report filed by the AS 583/99 12 committee. One needs to refer the same in this context. It is seen signed by the members of the committee. A reading of the report shows the various steps taken by the institution and the committee, for locating the delinquent students, who had caused damage to the instrument used in the institution. The committee was initially, unable to get anything against the plaintiff. Interestingly enough, the committee gets an anonymous phone call on 18.07.1995, stating that one Anirudhan and Shijesh were aware of the true facts and they also knew the delinquents. The committee then proceeds to the house of Anirudhan. Going by the report, Anirudhan says that the mischief was done by Bijeesh. The report does not indicate that Anirudhan had associated the plaintiff with Bijeesh. The definite stand taken by Anirudhan was that he had occasion to see Bijeesh tampering with the equipment and when he questioned his act, Bijeesh became furious. Nowhere in the report, it is stated that Anirudhan had even mentioned about the presence of Muraleedharan. The Committee AS 583/99 13 then proceeds to the house of Shijesh. Shijesh simply says that the plaintiff was also involved with Bijeesh. From the statements given by those two students, it appears that it was Bijeesh and Muraleedharan, who had done the act. But, it is on the basis of an anonymous statement that the institution came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had a role to play in the so called incident and chose to fasten the liability on the plaintiff. 16. There is nothing to show that notice was issued by the enquiry committee to the plaintiff. There is also nothing to show that he was called upon to appear before the committee for a hearing or to file a representation. 17. In fact, against the conduct of DW2, the plaintiff had some grievance. It is stated that DW2, a member of the enquiry committee started enquiring into the incident, even before the committee was constituted. It is extremely doubtful whether the committee was formed on 18.07.1995 as claimed by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff that he had replied to the charge memo was found to be true, AS 583/99 14 by the Court below, even though it was denied by the defendant. It is also significant to note that there was no charge against the third person, whose name was specifically mentioned by Anirudhan. It has come out in evidence that Bijeesh was allowed to continue in the institution and the defendant claimed that he had tendered unconditional apology. It is also doubtful on going through the evidence on record whether the plaintiff had access at all to the place where the instrument, which was alleged to have been damaged, was kept. 18. It was the above facts and circumstances, which persuaded the Court below to come to the conclusion that the action taken against the plaintiff was unjust, unfair and illegal and that he was not given an opportunity to explain his position. The said finding is fully justified and does not call for any interference. 19. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that the quantum of damages awarded is incorrect and has no support in law. AS 583/99 15 It is pointed out that the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- being the costs of text books purchased by the plaintiff and Rs.850/- towards bus fare. The learned counsel pointed out that even assuming the said amounts have been incurred by the plaintiff, that has nothing to do with the action taken by the defendant. Those expenses would have been normally incurred by him, when he studies in any institution. Those expenses have no nexus to the act involved in this case, it was contended. 20. There is some justification in the above contention. One fails to understand how the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of text books and the amount spent by him towards bus fare. So, the said amounts will have to be declined. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of damages awarded as Rs.14,050/- stands modified as Rs.10,200/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred only) with 6% interest from the date of the suit till AS 583/99 16 the date of realisation. The respondent/defendant is entitled to pay costs in this appeal. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE Corrigendum The last sentence in the judgment dated 14.01.2010, reads as follows : “The respondent/defendant is entitled to pay costs in this appeal.” In fact, what was intended by this court was that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get his costs in the appeal. Accordingly, the last sentence in the judgment dated 14.01.2010 shall be corrected to read as follows : “The respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get his costs in this appeal.” 14.06.2012 P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS 583/99 17 P.BHAVADASAN, J. ======================== AS No.583 of 1999 ======================== JUDGMENT DATED 14TH JANUARY 2010 ========================= AS 583/99 18