IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER *BAD DATE*, THE 0TH *BAD DATE* 0 / WA.No. 996 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11061/2008 DATED 18/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------- 1. M.R.ARUNRAJ, 3RD YEAR B.V. SC & A.H. STUDENT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR-680 551. 2. BERIN.P.VARGHESE, 3RD YEAR B.V. SC & A.H. STUDENT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR-680 551. 3. ABIN BABY MATHEW, 2ND YEAR B.V. SC & A.H. STUDENT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR-680 551. 4. R. AZEEM, 2ND YEAR B.V.SC & A.H. STUDENT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR-680 551. 5. AJAS MOHAMMED, 2ND YEAR B.V.SC & A.H. STUDENT, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR-680 551. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, VELLANIKKARA, KAU P.O., TRICHUR-680 656, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE DEAN, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, MANNUTHI, TRICHUR DISTRICT-680 551. BY S.C. ADV.SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON 22/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 996 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellants who are studying in the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences under the Kerala Agricultural University were suspended from the college on the charge of ragging junior students. After holding an enquiry, the University imposed certain minor punishments, one of which was that the period of suspension from October 31, 2007 to March 4, 2008 shall be treated as absence for all “academic programmes of the University”. 2. After revocation of suspension, appellants approached the University seeking permission to write the supplementary examinations in some papers which they could not write during the period of their suspension. The University did not accede to the above request. 3. It was in the above circumstances that appellants had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of revocation of suspension to the extent it treated the period of suspension as absence for all academic programmes of the University. The other prayer was to issue a writ mandamus to permit WA.996/2008. : 2 : them to write the supplementary examinations and to regularise the period of suspension. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the stand taken by the University. 4. It is contended by the appellants that the University after having revoked the order of suspension accepting the finding of the Enquiry Committee that there was “possibility of misbehaviour” by the appellants towards the junior students, it was not just or proper to treat the period of suspension as absence for all academic programmes of the University. It is further contended that the refusal to grant permission to write the supplementary examinations in those subjects for which mid-term and internal examinations were held during the period of suspension, was highly illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and regulations governing the field. Are these contentions legally valid and tenable? 5. A brief reference to the incidents of ragging which culminated in the suspension of the appellants is necessary to consider the question whether the action of the University was justified. 6. Appellants 1 and 2 are third year students of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry in the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences under the Kerala Agricultural University. Appellants 3 to 5 WA.996/2008. : 3 : are second year students in the same course. It is not in dispute that junior students who got admission during the academic year 2007-08 were subjected to ragging by senior students in the hostel and in the college campus. 7. The incidents of ragging which started some time in October 2007, immediately after admission of junior students, took an unfortunate and ugly turn when Sri.Manu, a junior student, attempted to commit suicide in his hostel room, allegedly being unable to bear the trauma and agony of ragging perpetrated by the senior students. Sri.Manu identified the appellants as his tormentors. The Police swung into action on receipt of a complaint in this regard. A crime was registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998 (for Short the Act) and also under Section 306 red with Section 511 IPC. 8. The application submitted by the appellants for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by its order dated December 18, 2007 (Berin P. Varghese v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KHC 164). Later, the appellants were arrested by the Police and the Sessions Court, Thrissur released them on bail by its order dated January 25, 2008. WA.996/2008. : 4 : 9. As mentioned earlier, the University had constituted a Committee comprising an Associate Dean as its Chairman and a Director and Associate Professor as its members to enquire into the incidents of ragging and the circumstances that led to the attempt made by Sri.Manu to commit suicide. Appellants were placed under suspension with effect from October 31, 2007 pending enquiry. 10. The Committee, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted its report to the University. It was thereafter that the University had issued Ext.P2 order on March 4, 2008 revoking the suspension with certain conditions, one of which was that “the period of suspension from 31/10/2007 to the date of order (4/3/2008) shall be treated as absence for all academic programmes of the University”. In Ext.P2 order it was stated that the Enquiry report indicated that the appellants had misbehaved to Sri.Manu, though it was not concluded that the appellants were guilty of ragging. The appellants have laid heavy stress on the above statement in Ext.P2 and contended that refusal of the University to permit them to write the supplementary examination is per se illegal and arbitrary. 11. When this writ appeal came up for consideration, we had called for the report of enquiry. It is seen from the report that Sri.Manu had WA.996/2008. : 5 : appeared before the Committee on November 19, 2007. The Committee noticed that Sri.Manu had not recovered fully from the trauma and was still undergoing treatment. He had informed the Committee that he was constantly abused by the senior students in the hostel mess. He was asked to remove his moustache. He was not allowed to wear good clothes and was asked to repeat filthy words about the students etc. 12. It is significant to note that Sri.Manu had identified the appellants in front of the Dean on October 30, 2007. Even thereafter Sri.Manu had allegedly identified the appellants to the Police and the media people. Sri.Manu had asserted that the appellants had ragged him. 13. As mentioned earlier, the anticipatory bail application submitted by the appellants was dismissed by this Court by its order dated December 18, 2007 (Berin P.Varghese) (supra). The learned Judge who had occasion to peruse the case diary had referred to one of the many acts which the victim was allegedly requisitioned to do by the senior students. But surprisingly the enquiry report does not refer to that. The statement given by the victim before the Committee has also not been produced before us along with the report. Anyhow, we do not propose to deal with that aspect of the mater in detail. Suffice it to say that a perusal of the report will WA.996/2008. : 6 : undoubtedly show that Sri.Manu had attempted to commit suicide only because of the mental trauma and agony suffered by him at the hands of the appellants, who were specifically and repeatedly identified by Sri.Manu before various authorities, apart from the Committee members. The case registered by the Police against the appellants is admittedly pending before the criminal court. 14. It is true that in the concluding part, the Committee had reported thus: “....Sri.Manu has repeatedly identified the same five students in front of the committee also. Hence the committee feels that there is possibility for misbehavement (sic) by the five students with Sri.Manu in the hostel. The ill treatment towards him and the mental pain would have led Sri.Manu to slash his wrist to commit suicide.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellants placing heavy reliance on the above statement made by the Committee in its report has contended before us that the punishment imposed by the University on the appellants is totally illegal and unwarranted. According the the learned counsel, “misdemeanor” or “misbehavour” of the students in the college campus cannot be equated with an act of “ragging” as defined under the Act. WA.996/2008. : 7 : 16. The Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998 was enacted with a view to put an end to ragging in educational institutions in the State which had grown to alarmingly disturbing proportions and led to calamitous consequences in some of the campuses. Though initially it might have been started as good natured pranks or innocuous jokes by the seniors to welcome junior students to the campus life, ragging had turned out to be a menace and quite often a life threatening physical assault on very young students who were still in their teens. The senior students, some of whom were veterans in the “business”, had taken ragging to such despicable levels that some young and tender students could not withstand the traumatic experiences meted out to them. Some of the acts which the seniors tried to force on the junior students were obviously too abhorrent and unbearable to some of them that one, like the victim in this case who is made of a less sterner stuff, tried to commit suicide. In one of the notorious instances in a campus in the State, a junior girl student was allegedly gang raped by the seniors inside the campus in the name of ragging. The case is now pending in the Sessions Court. Atrocities like these perpetrated by students in campuses are nothing short of barbarism. No civilized society can tolerate such inhuman or animal like behaviour. WA.996/2008. : 8 : 17. If the senior students think that they have got license to defile and desecrate human values and dignity it is high time that some sense is knocked into their heads. The provisions contained in Act 1998 should, under normal circumstances, achieve the desired results. But still, noticing the increasing number of reported incidents of ragging even after the above enactment especially the one involving gang rape, we are afraid that the educational institutions are a little lax in the proper implementation of the Act. A campus for learning shall not be allowed to deteriorate into a slum where sleazy characters with criminal tendencies lurk around in the dark shadows of debauchery. In such dark alleys of horror, sense and sensibility are the first casualty. 18. “Ragging” as defined in Section 2(b) under the Act means: “doing of any act, by disorderly conduct, to a student of an educational institution, which causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or raising apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to that student and includes-- (i) teasing, abusing or playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to such student; or WA.996/2008. : 9 : (ii) asking a student to do any act or perform something which such students will not, in the ordinary course, willingly , do.” 19. Section 3 prohibits ragging within or without any educational institution. Section 4 prescribes penalty for ragging, which on conviction may extend to imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rupees ten thousand. Section 5 postulates that any student convicted of an offence under section 4 shall be dismissed from the educational institution and such students shall not be admitted in any other educational institution for a period of three years from the date of order of such dismissal. 20. Section 6 of the Act reads thus: “(1) Whenever any student or, as the case may be, the parents or guardian, or a teacher of an educational institution complains, in writing, of ragging to the head of the educational institution, the head of that educational institution shall, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, within seven days of the receipt of the complaint, enquire into the matter mentioned in the complaint and, if, prima facie, it is found true, suspend the student who is accused of the offence, and shall, immediately forward the complaint to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the educational institution is WA.996/2008. : 10 : situate, for further action. (2) Where, on enquiry by the head of the educational institution, it is proved that there is no substance prima facie in the complaint received under sub-section (1), he shall intimate the fact, in writing, to the complaint.” 21. The head of the educational institution is empowered to suspend a student if a complaint of ragging is received against him from any student, parents, guardian or a teacher of an educational institution and if the complaint is prima facie found to be true. More significantly, if the head of the institution fails or neglects to take action under Section 6 on receipt of a complaint he shall be deemed to have abetted the offence of ragging punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 22. A perusal of the definition of “ragging” extracted above shows that any disorderly conduct towards a student which causes or is likely to cause physical of psychological harm or raising apprehension or fear or shame or embarassment will fall within the ambit of ragging. Similarly teasing, abusing or playing practical jokes will also attract the offence of ragging Asking a student to do any act or perform something which such student will not in the ordinary course willingly do, is also nothing but ragging, going by the definition. Asking to perform oral sex can, by no WA.996/2008. : 11 : stretch of imagination be termed as “misdemeanor” as contended by the appellants. (This is revealed from the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the anticipatory bail application submitted by the appellants after perusing the case diary). (Berin P.Varghese) (supra) 23. Having carefully perused the enquiry report, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the appellants were guilty of only misdemeanor and not of an offence of ragging. 24. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the order to treat the period of suspension as absence for all academic programmes of the University is arbitrary and illegal. Placing heavy reliance on clause 5 in SRO.No.752/74 issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971 it is contended by the learned counsel that the Dean can award only suitable punishment to students for acts of “misdeameanour” for the purpose of maintaining discipline in the college and that too only after obtaining prior approval of the Vice Chancellor. The above contention raised by the learned counsel is totally misconceived and unsustainable. It may be noticed that the statutes notified under the above S.R.O. deal with qualifications, manner of appointments, salary, powers and duties etc. of the Dean of the University. WA.996/2008. : 12 : Clause 5(xiii) obligates that the Dean shall be responsible to the Vice Chancellor for maintaining discipline in the college. The Dean may “award suitable punishment for acts of misdemeanour”. 25. But in the case on hand, we are concerned with commission of an offence publishable under Section 4 of the Act, the sentence for which may extend to imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, if found guilty. Section 5 of the Act further postulates that any student convicted of an offence under Section 4 shall be dismissed from the educational institution and such students shall not be admitted in any other educational institution for a period of three years from the date of order of such dismissal. 26. In Ext.P2 order it was made clear by the University that the appellants were being permitted to continue their studies subject to the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court in the bail order and also subject to the result of the criminal case pending before the criminal court. Appellants were expelled from the hostel also. 27. We have referred to the above conditions imposed in Ext.P2 only to indicate that prima facie the University was satisfied that the charge levelled against the appellants was very grave. Significantly the appellants WA.996/2008. : 13 : have only sought to quash clause 2 in Ext.P2 order to the extent it treats the period of suspension “as absence for all academic programmes” of the University. 28. It may be true that the appellants might have missed some of the mid term and internal examinations during the period when they were placed under suspension. The suspension was for valid and justifiable reasons. The Enquiry Committee had categorically stated that the victim had identified the appellants as his tormentors in unambiguous terms on more than one occasion. According to Sri.Manu, the victim, he had attempted to commit suicide in his hostel room since he could not bear the mental and physical torment and agony undergone by him because of the ragging perpetrated by the appellants. One or two inappropriate phrases or terminologies used by the Enquiry Committee in its report cannot decide the issue as to whether or not the appellants were prima facie responsible for the alleged acts of ragging. Proving the charge against the appellants under the Act is within the domain of the Criminal Court. The enquiry in question was confined to the action to be taken against the appellants at the institutional level. The University had accepted the report and expelled the appellants from the hostel. They were permitted to continue their studies WA.996/2008. : 14 : subject to the result of the criminal case pending against them. The appellants were also asked to give an undertaking that they would not indulge in any such activity in future . It was made clear that violation of any of the above conditions would result in expulsion from the college. 29. Viewed from the above angle, it cannot be said that the University had committed any illegality in treating the period of suspension of the appellants as absence for all academic programmes of the University. Admittedly the appellants could not attend the classes during the period of suspension. They had not participated in any of the academic programmes during that period. Though the University is vested with the power to conduct supplementary examinations for students who could not attend the examination for genuine reasons such as accident, hospitalization, contagious diseases etc. the case of the appellants was totally different. As rightly pointed out by the University, the appellants did not have the minimum percentage of attendance for the subjects concerned because of suspension, as envisaged under Rule 26.1 of the Academic Regulations and therefore they had not successfully completed the course, either in theory or practical classes. WA.996/2008. : 15 : 30. Thus having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the University was justified in refusing to grant permission to the appellants to write the supplementary examinations which they could not write during the period of suspension from October 31, 2007 to March 4, 2008. The learned single Judge, in our view, was justified in declining reliefs to the appellants. There is no merit in any of the contention raised by the appellants in the writ appeal. The Writ Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.