IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11052 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NITHIN ABRAHAM GEORGE, ERINJERY HOUSE, BINDU NAGAR, NATTAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT: --------------- THE PRINCIPAL, SAINT GITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTOM P.O KOTTAYAM 686 532. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 11052 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P5 and the petitioner seeks to quash the same. It is seen that the petitioner is a student of the respondent college. A complaint is stated to have been received from the Principal of Amal Jyothy College of Engineering, Kanjirappally. The complaint was to the effect that the petitioner went there in a drunken condition and assaulted the Principal. Based on the complaint he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was held and explanation was submitted. It resulted in Ext. P5 expelling the petitioner. It is averred by the petitioner that the Principal of the Amal Jyothy College of Engineering himself has issued Ext. P6 appealing to the management of the respondent to reduce the punishment. It is contended that since the facts found in the enquiry were incorrect, and at any rate punishment imposed is disproportionate and as the victim himself has issued Ext. P6, the college should have been more considerate. W.P.(C) No. 11052 OF 2008 -2- 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I am not satisfied that there is merit in the writ petition for interference. First of all, the respondent is a self-financing college and the scope of interference is doubtful. Even otherwise this is a case where allegations of serious misconducts were raised and were proved in an enquiry that was held. The misconduct includes getting intoxicated and even assaulting the Principal of a college where the petitioner had gone, allegedly as part of presentation. Certainly the misconduct proved is grave and warrants severe punishment. 3. Appreciating the material on record, if the disciplinary authority of the college considered that the expulsion of the student is the appropriate punishment this Court does not have any material to conclude that the same is illegal or disproportionate warranting interference. In any case, this Court will not be justified in sitting in appeal over a decision of an authority in a matter relating to discipline in a campus Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-