IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32647 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SYAM MOHAN, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, SUTDENT 12 STD, SREE NARAYANA CENTRAL SCHOOL,KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DIST,MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE FATHER MOHANAN PILLAI,SYAMAM, BEHIND B.B.H.S, NANGIARKULANGARA PO,VIA HARIPPAD,ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.G.BENO SMT.S.CHYTHANYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA DIST POIN 690 502. 2. VICE PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA DIST POIN 690 502. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE SREE NARAYANA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA DIST POIN 690 502. 4. THE PRESIDENT, SREE NARAYANA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA DIST POIN 690 502. R1 & 2 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR R3 & 4 BY ADVS.SRI.C.D.ANIL SRI.RENJIT GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 32647/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD. 20/08/2010 P2: COPY OF LETTER NO. 014/SNCS P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/08/2010 REGARDING THE APPOINT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE. P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/08/2010 REQUESTING APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 06/09/2010. P6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 13/09/2010. P7: COPY OF REPLY DTD. 17/09/2010 BY THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 25/09/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING FURTHER CLARIFICATION FROM THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/10/2010 IN WPC.30381/2010. P10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGSNO.014/SNCS DTD. 19/10/2010 P11: COPY OF THE STATEMENT P12: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 04/09/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a 12th std. student in the Sree Narayana Central School, Kayamkulam. 2. By Ext.P1 order of the Principal, on the allegation that the petitioner was caught by the police while involving in a fight with others near KPAC Junction and was brought to the school by the Sub Inspector of police, who reported the incident to the Principal, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, he was issued Ext.P2 memo of charges and statements of allegations. In the statements of allegations there are four allegations which reads as follows :- 1. Sri.Syam Mohan right from the beginning of the academic year 2010-2011 is showing indifference attitude in complaining the directions of the teachers and head of the institution Principal warned him for not repeating the regularity. 2. You remain abstain from the school on 19th and 20th August with out giving any information either by you or by the parent. 2 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 3. It is reported by the Sub Inspector of Police that you were involved in fighting with other, near the KPAC Junction on 20th August 2010. 4. You have behaved/acted against the school discipline and code of conduct and also against the undertaking given by the parent at the time of admission in this school. 3. The petitioner did not submit any explanation. However, an enquiry was conducted and Ext.P5 report was submitted by the enquiry Committee. After evaluating the evidence, the committee held that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct alleged and the final conclusion of the committee reads as follows:- We conclude that Shyam is a person usually showing indifferent attitude in attending Class and lessons, irregular in attending classes, neglect in study and homeworks, disobedience and disrespect to the teachers. Involved in fight with our students and outsiders in association with his bad friend mainly auto drivers. On 20th August police caught him from the fighting place (KPAC Junction) and produced him before the Principal. At that time school management committee members Shri.D.Binu and Shri.Sreeranjan were present in the principal chamber. Police personal stated pointing Shyam Mohan that he is a person promoting anti-social activities outside the school by bringing outside persons. We also find it correct while going through his statements (Shyam 3 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 Mohan's) and others. It is observed that he deliberately given some false and unbelievable statements to hide the facts with an intention to escape from possible disciplinary action. Therefore we have no room for any doubt in reporting that all the allegations made against him stands proved. The report is signed and submitted on 09th September 2010 for the favour of further necessary action. 4. On receipt of the report, the Principal of the school issued Ext.P6 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be proceeded against in the matter. On receipt of the show cause notice, the father of the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply, requesting to drop further proceedings against the petitioner and to permit him to continue in the school. Further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which is Ext.P8 and at that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.30381/10. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment marked as Ext.P9, directing the Principal to finalise the proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Principal has issued Ext.P10 proceedings dated 19.10.2010, accepting the report of the 4 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 enquiry committee and ordering removal of the petitioner from the rolls of the school. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings this writ petition is filed. 6. Contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are mainly that in the enquiry reasonable opportunity was not afforded. It is also his case that as per Ext.P12, the police has already certified that he is not an accused in any criminal case and therefore the Principal ought not have removed him from the school. It is also contended that at any rate, the extreme punishment of removal from the school should not have been imposed. 7. Principal has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner joined the school only in Std.XI and that right from the beginning, the petitioner was indifferent in attending the classes, doing home work and obeying the directions of the teachers. It is also stated that the petitioner has failed in three subjects in the final year examination of Std.XI. Apart from the unauthorised absence of 5 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 the petitioner mentioned in the memo of charges the more important misconduct of the petitioner that is mentioned is that on 20.8.2010, the Sub Inspector of police found the petitioner fighting with outsiders at the KPAC junction. It is stated by the Principal that the petitioner is always in company with autorikshaw drivers and that such a conduct of the petitioner was against the discipline of the school. The Principal further states that, a student like the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in the school to the detriment of more than 3000 students. 8. Maintenance of discipline in a school is the responsibility of the Principal and unless there are strong reasons, this court will not interfere in a matter like this. If the conduct of a student, is found to be affecting the discipline of the school, of which the Principal is the best judge, the Principal is entitled to take action against such a student. If such a bonafide action has been taken by the Principal, it is not only in the interest of the school, but also in the interest of other students, whose character 6 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 formation can be affected by undesirable characters in the campus. 9. In this case even if the indifference of the student in academic matters is ignored and his unauthorised absence of two days is condoned, still it certainly is a matter of concern of the school, that the petitioner was found fighting with others in a public road and that too along with autorikshaw drivers of the area. He was brought to the school by the police officer. It was that conduct of the petitioner, which appears to have triggered the disciplinary action, which is perfectly justified. 10. In the disciplinary action, show cause notice was sent to the petitioner and despite this opportunity, he did not file any explanation. Enquiry was held by a committee, appointed by the Principal. The committee collected evidence and the petitioner was also heard. It is thereafter that the committee submitted Ext.P5 report, which shows that after adverting to the evidence that was collected, the committee held that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner was proved. On a careful 7 W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2010 consideration of Ext.P5, I am not in a position to conclude that the findings of the enquiry committee are perverse or vitiated for any reason. Once the misconducts are proved and if the Principal considered that the misconducts are grave enough, warranting the removal of the student from the school, this court will not be justified in sitting in judgment over the decision of the Principal, which is aimed at maintaining discipline at school, which has more than 3000 students on the school. I am not persuaded to interfere with and there is no merit in this writ petition. Writ petition dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/