THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 1844 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the proceedings dated 29.12.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, namely the Director, Nishitha College of Engineering and Technology, insofar as it relates to his rustication from the college for a period of one year with a provision for further extension of rustication, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to appear for B. Tech (ECE) II year II semester examinations to be conducted by the 1st respondent, namely Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The petitioner is studying B.Tech (ECE) II year II semester in the 2nd respondent-college. While so, on the ground that the petitioner and four others, were allegedly responsible for the suicide of one N. Bhargava, student of the very same college, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 29.12.2008, rusticating the petitioner and four others from the college for a period of one year with a provision for further extension of rustication. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR, however, in the remand report dated 15.12.2008, he has been arrayed as A5. He submitted that there is no allegation of ragging made against the petitioner in the suicide note, and as such, the action of the 2nd respondent could not have rusticated him from the college. He further submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before the impugned proceedings, rusticating him from the college was passed. He submits that even though the impugned proceedings refers to an enquiry report, the petitioner was neither called for the enquiry nor the Enquiry Committee has questioned him. Hence, he submits that the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent, rusticating the petitioner from the college be set aside and it be held that the petitioner is entitled to appear for the B.Tech (ECE) II year II semester examinations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-college. The petitioner, admittedly is an accused in Crime No. 137 of Kandukur Police Station, registered against him and four others on account of the suicide of one N. Bhargava, in which he is arrayed as A5. Though the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR, the fact remains, in the remand case diary of the police, the name of the petitioner is shown as A5. Consequent upon the death of the student, the 2nd respondent, having regard to the allegations of harassment and beating, placed four students under suspension. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings rusticating the petitioner and four others from the college for a period of one year with provision for further extension of rustication. Though the petitioner contends that no notice whatsoever was issued to him before the impugned order rusticating him from the college was passed by the 2nd respondent, the fact remains, the material placed before the Court would show that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.11.2008, while appointing a five-member Enquiry Committee, to look into the cause of death of the student, has ordered the Enquiry Committee to meet at 10.30 a.m. on 29.11.2008 in the College, and further directed the accused to appear for enquiry. The Enquiry Committee, accordingly conducted the enquiry, and based on the material placed before it, namely the suicide note of the victim and the remand case diary report of the police, reported that names of three students were found in the suicide note who are said to be directly responsible for the cause of the suicide, and it further reported that the petitioner and another person, were actually the persons who stole the cell phones and shifted the blame on to the victim. That the victim unable to bear this harassment had committed suicide. Inasmuch as the impugned proceedings, issued by 2nd respondent, rusticating the petitioner and four others from college, was preceded by an enquiry by a five-member Enquiry Committee, in which the petitioner and others were called upon to appear, the petitioner now cannot be allowed to contend that no notice whatsoever was issued to him before the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, rusticating him from the college was passed. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 17th March, 2009 KSR