1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1963 OF 2010 Ketan S/o Arun Doke } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Sarnobatwadi, Tq. Karveer, } Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1964 OF 2010 Ramdas S/o Navnath Gurav } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Sarnobatwadi, Tq. Karveer, } Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 2 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1965 OF 2010 Abasaheb S/o Uttareshwar Kawade } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Presently residing in Room No.15, } Govt.College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1966 OF 2010 Bhojling S/o Vishnu Dodmsie } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Sarnobatwadi, Tq. Karveer, } Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1967 OF 2010 Vijay S/o Ashok Ekatpure } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Presently residing in Room No.12, } Boys’ Senior Hostel, } Govt.College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER 4 V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2010 Sagar S/o Bharat Khatkale } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Presently residing in Room No.210, } Govt.College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS 5 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1969 OF 2010 Sagar S/o Sunil Kharade } Age : 17 Years, Occ. : Education, } (Through the natural guardian } Sunil S/o Ramling Kharade } R/o : Presently residing in Room No.3, } Govt.College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1970 OF 2010 Ajit S/o Prakash Suryawanshi } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Sarnobatwadi, Tq. Karveer, } Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER 6 V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2010 Vikrant S/o Himmatrao Gaikwad } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Presently residing in Room No. 15, } Govt.College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS 7 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1972 OF 2010 Sachin S/o Suryakant Jadhav } Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : C/o Lokpriya General Store } R/o : Sarnobatwadi, Tq. Karveer, } Dist. Kolhapur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Through its Registrar, } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. The Vice Chancellor } Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth } Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The Associate Dean } Govt. College of Agriculture, } Vidyanagar, Kolhapur. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 25/03/2010 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20/04/2010 8 JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 3. The facts as are necessary to decide the petitions can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties, as under : The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the students of Govt. College of Agriculture, Kolhapur. On 22/12/2009, a complaint was filed by one Shri. Prashant Divte that after the practical examinations were over, he was proceeding to his room. At that time, some seniors obstructed him and was beaten and abused by them. Thereafter on 23/12/2009, at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m., when said Shri. Divte and his friend were studying in front of their hostel, at that time, one Ramdas Gurav came on motorcycle and beat him. Thereafter the F.I.R. was filed by said Shri. Divte on 24/12/2009 with the Police Station alleging that on 24/12/2009, again at about 8.30 a.m., the students of 4th year had gathered in front of the senior’s hostel and Shri. Divte and his friends were beaten. The said senior students also pelted stones. At the time of said incident, even the lecturers and Principal 9 were also present. It is contended that the seniors had a grievance that they are not being given respect by the juniors and that juniors have made complaint against them. 4. The Enquiry Committee of the said college issued a notice on 26/12/2009. The said notice was displayed on the notice board of the college, which stated that 23 students named therein shall appear before the Enquiry Committee. According to the petitioners, the said notice did not contain the details of the allegations or the nature of the misconduct. On 27/12/2009, 28/12/2009 and 29/12/2009, the petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Committee and requested to supply copy of the Complaint. However, the allegations against the petitioners were not disclosed to them nor a copy of the Complaint was supplied to them. Thereafter, on 20/1/2010, Registrar of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Vidyapeeth ’ ) suspended the petitioners for one semester and permanently removed them from the hostel of the college, so also imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). 5. The petitioners thereafter presented a representation/appeal to the Vice Chancellor of the University on 28/1/2010 and they also filed the present Writ Petition inter-alia praying to quash the impugned order dated 20/1/2010 10 withdrawing/suspending the petitioners from from college for one semester with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). 6. Before adverting to the legal submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be necessary to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have preferred an Appeal on 28/1/2010 to the Vice Chancellor of the University. In view of the fact that the Appeal is already preferred, the present Writ Petition can not be entertained. According to Mr. Talekar, there is no provision of Appeal and the Appeal which is made to the Vice Chancellor is only a representation given to them. Mr. Shahane relied on Rule 6 of the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri Students’ Discipline and Conduct Rules, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Rules 2002 ’ ). According to him, a student aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon him, can prefer an Appeal to the Vice Chancellor within 15 days from the date of communication of the order in respect of punishment imposed on him. Mr. Shahane relying on the Rules 2002, canvassed that as the petitioners have already preferred an Appeal, the present Writ Petition is not tenable. The said remedy of Appeal is a substantive remedy and as such on this count the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11 7. We have gone through Rule 6 of the Rules, 2002. For ready reference, Rule 6 is quoted as under : “In case the Associate Dean Principal/ Head of the Institution considers that a more deterrent punishment than that mentioned above is warranted in any particular case, he may suspend a student from the college/institution for the entire academic year or expel him from the college/institution. The aggrieved students shall have the right to prefer an appeal to the Vice – Chancellor within fifteen days from the date of communication of order in respect of the punishment imposed on him. Such an appeal may, at the option of the Vice – Chancellor be referred to a Committee consisting of Dean of Faculty, the Associate Dean and the Director of Students’ Welfare for enquiry and report ”. 8. On perusal of Rule 6, it is clear that in case the Associate Dean, Principal / head of the Institution considers that more deterrent punishment than that mentioned above is warranted in any particular case, he may suspend the student from the college/institution for the entire academic year or expel him from the college/institution, in that case, the aggrieved student shall have a right to prefer an appeal to the Vice – Chancellor. In the present case, the petitioners are suspended for the period of one semester and not for entire academic year. Rule 6 would be applicable and the remedy of appeal would be available to the 12 student only if the punishment imposed upon him is such that he is suspended for the entire academic year or expelled from the College/Institution. In case of punishment which is less than one academic year, Rule 6 has no application and even if it is assumed that the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the Vice Chancellor, any order passed by the Vice Chancellor would be an order “ Coram Non Judice ” and as such would be “ Non est ”. In view of the same, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is unsustainable. 9. Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged before us that while conducting the said enquiry, none of the provisions of the Rules, 2002 has been followed. The whole enquiry is vitiated for non observance of the Rules, 2002, so also the punishment imposed. Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel formulated following preposition : (1) The Registrar who has imposed the punishment, has no power to impose the same ; (2) Principles of natural justice are not followed on account of following omissions : (i) Allegations were not made known to the petitioners. (ii) Only notice was to appear on 27th December, 2009, 13 without disclosing the alleged misconduct. (iii) Report of enquiry was not supplied to them (iv) No show cause notice was issued before imposing the punishment. (3) The report does not substantiate any material on the basis of which finding was recorded. According to him, only inferences are drawn. 10. On the other hand Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the incidents occured on 22/12/2009 and continued up to 24/12/2009 regarding beating of the students, throwing of stones and use of filthy language. It was submitted by him that considering the seriousness of the above incident, Enquiry Committee was constituted as per provisions of Appendix I Rule 7-A of the Rules 2002. According to him, after giving due and proper notice to all the students, the Disciplinary Committee has made detailed enquiry in respect of the incident that occured between 22/12/2009 and 24/12/2009 by giving opportunity of hearing to all students including the petitioners and their parents and every rule of natural justice have been followed by the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee has prepared detailed report of enquiry and submitted the same to the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth, i.e. respondent no. 1 and on consideration of the said report, the punishment has been given by the Registrar debarring the students for one semester and imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand 14 only). Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel vehemently submitted that if action is not taken against indisciplined students, then a wrong message would be sent to other students and the same would be improper and as such it is immensely necessary to take action against the erring students. According to him, each and every rule of the Rules, 2002 have been scrupulously followed. While controverting the arguments of Mr. Talekar that Registrar has no power to impose punishment under the rules, Mr. Shahane submitted that the Registrar is the custodian of the record of the University as per Section 19 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities ( Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 and is competent to take action against the students. According to him, as per Section 65 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Universities Act ’ ), the Vice Chancellor has also powers to take disciplinary action against the students of the University for maintenance of discipline and the said power can be exercised by him through Registrar and also as per the provisions of academic regulation no. 23, the powers are with the Registrar to take disciplinary action. According to him, as per Section 2 (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Ragging Act ’ ), the Vice Chancellor of the University being head of the Institution, can take action against the students through the Registrar. As such, according to him, in view of the provisions referred to herein above, the order of punishment issued to the students by the Registrar do not suffer from any legal defect and 15 no illegality is committed while imposing said punishment. According to him, there is no provision to supply copy of the enquiry report to the students under the rules. 11. Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel for petitioners has stated that action has been taken under the Rules, 2002. The punishment has been imposed for debarring the students from the college for one semester under Rule 5 and Rule 5 does not bestow authority upon the Registrar to impose punishment. The authority only vests with the Associate Dean, Principal of the College/Head of the Institution. Head of the Institution has been defined under Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules, 2002 which is as follows : “ It means and includes the Associate Dean and Principal of College (or Principal or Gram Sevak Training Centre ) or Superintendent of Agriculture School ”. The Registrar is not given the powers to impose punishment under Rule 5. Mr. Shahane has tried to rely upon the provisions of the Ragging Act and the Universities Act to substantiate his argument that the Registrar would be competent to impose punishment. 12. It is settled proposition of law that when a particular 16 Statute lays down a particular act to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, otherwise not to be done at all. When the action which is taken against the petitioners, involve penal consequences, then Rules will have to be strictly construed and adhered. It will not be permissible to import the provisions of the other Statute or rules when the rules framed are self-sufficient. Rule 5 unequivocally names the authorities, who would have the jurisdiction to impose the punishment. Said rule does not bestow any authority upon the Registrar. Undisputedly, in the present matter, the punishment has been imposed by the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth. In view of the fact that the Rules, 2002 do not bestow any power on the Registrar to impose punishment, the action taken by him in imposing the punishment by the order dated 20/1/2010 is per se and ex-facie illegal and without any authority. According to us, on this count itself, the petition deserves to succeed. 13. The contention of the petitioners that the notice which was displayed on the notice board requiring them to appear before the Enquiry Committee, did not contain the nature of allegations or the alleged misconduct, is not disputed by the respondents in their affidavit in reply. It is the cardinal principle of jurisprudence that if a person is sought to face enquiry, he should at least know what are the allegations, for which he has to submit his Say. This has not at all been adhered to by the respondents. The report of enquiry was also not 17 supplied to them. Clause ‘ D ’ of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2002 mandates that the student has to be given an opportunity to show cause within a reasonable time why the punishment proposed to be imposed on him, should not be imposed. The only exception is that the same would not be necessary only if the punishment of fine which is sought to be imposed, does not exceed Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred only ). In the present case, it is an admitted fact that no show cause notice was given before imposing the punishment. The punishment imposed is debarring the students for one semester and imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only ). Thus, it is amply clear that Clause ‘ D ’ of Rule 7 of Rules, 2002 have not been adhered to. So also, Clause ‘ B ’ of Rule 7 also mandates that reasonable time and opportunity has to be given to the student to make a representation and thereafter as per clause ‘ C ’ of the said rules, a finding has to be recorded on the point of imputation or indiscipline. In the present case, this procedure has also not been followed. On 26/12/2009, a notice was displayed on the notice board of the college mentioning that the students named therein shall appear before the Enquiry Committee on 27/12/2009. This shows that no sufficient opportunity was also given to them. 14. On perusal of all such omissions on the part of the respondents, it is manifest that the respondents have followed the rules more in breach. 18 15. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that lenient view has been taken against the petitioners taking into account their future and as such action has not been taken under the Prohibition of Ragging Act, but has been taken under the Rules, 2002. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, such indiscipline of the students will have to be dealt with so that it will send the message to the other students and if they are left scot free, there would not be any check on the indiscipline or misconduct of students and the same would give impetus to the other students. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Pandurangji Khadatkar and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2002 (Bom.) - 312, the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in case of Principal, College of Engineering, Trivandrum V/s P.S. Anoop, so also the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President V/s Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and others, and Judgment of Apex Court in University of Kerala V/s Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala and others delivered in Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2009 . 16. Relying on these Judgments, he has stated that the Apex Court and all the High Courts have consistently held that wide spread ragging in the educational institution is the matter of concern and that the ugly scar is to be obliterated from the face of the institution and 19 such students indulging in such act of indiscipline should be severely dealt and the Court may not intervene in the process. 17. We have considered the said Judgments. The said Judgments are under the provisions of Prohibition of the Ragging Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that the provisions of the Prohibition of the Ragging Act have not been resorted to in this particular case and the provisions of the Rules, 2002 were only invoked for dealing with the petitioners and all the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are dealing with the Prohibition of the Ragging Act. 18. It is true that the indiscipline of the students should not be encouraged and they have to be dealt with. But, when the Statute, Rules lay down a particular procedure to be followed, then same also has to be adhered. The action that has to be taken and the punishment to be imposed, has to be in accordance and in conformity with the said Rules. The powers can not be exercised by those persons, who have not been given authorities under the said Rules, more particularly, when the said action involves penal consequences. It would be seen that the punishment has been imposed by the Registrar, who has no authority under the Rules. No show cause notice has been issued regarding the punishment. The notice for appearance before the Enquiry Committee, nowhere laid down the allegations which were made against the 20 petitioners, for which an enquiry has been called. No reasonable time has been given. In view of these facts, it would be difficult to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. 19. In view of the non observance of the rules laid down under the Rules, 2002, the impugned order dated 20/1/2010 passed by the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. These petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 20. Inter alia the punishment of suspending the petitioners from the college for one semester with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only ) is quashed and set aside. The Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ A ’ to the petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1963.......10 ( J ) 21 At this stage, Shri. Shahane, learned counsel for respondents requests to stay the Judgment. Request refused. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1963.......10 ( J )