HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2010 Date: October 26, 2010 Between: B. Pavan Kumar … Petitioner And 1. GMR Institute of Technology, rep. by its Principal, GMR Nagar, Rajam, Srikakulam District & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a student who was prosecuting his 2nd year B.Tech. decree course in the first respondent engineering college. 2. When it has come to the notice of the first respondent college that the writ petitioner is one of the four students who has indulged in an indecent activity at a private house on 24th September 2010, through the impugned order dated 01st October 2010 he along with the remaining three students has been suspended from the college for a period of three months commencing from 01st October, 2010 up to 31st December 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner comes from a decent background and he has also performed reasonably well in the first year and that it is only a mere allegation thrown against him that he has indulged in an indecent behaviour outside the college campus and even without putting him on notice or calling for his explanation, the first respondent college has unilaterally penalised him by suspending for a period of three months. By virtue of such an order, according to the learned counsel, the writ petitioner would face grave consequences inasmuch as he will not be able to take the semester end examinations in the 2nd year and it will also have a spiralling effect on his performance in the 2nd semester of the second year course and hence such an order which will have such drastic effects ought not to have been passed so casually. 4. In the impugned order, a mention is made about the apology letters tendered by all the four students including the writ petitioner. Therefrom the first respondent college considered it appropriate to suspend all the four students for a period of three months. It is purely an interim measure. These students have not been completely banished or debarred from prosecuting B.Tech. course. 5. Pursuing courses of higher education essentially requires the students to maintain certain standard of conduct and behaviour both on and off campus. Students pursuing higher education should not indulge in reckless behaviour. They must have regard for themselves and for the institutional reputation and also the fact that students who indulge in indecent behaviour, are likely to impact academic atmosphere, which is required to be maintained by institutions of higher learning. Therefore, such kind of erring students are required to be kept away from the campus, to prevent the ill effects of their presence to fall on the rest of the students. I therefore do not consider that the impugned order has been passed either mechanically or recklessly by the first respondent college. 6. Further, applicability of principles of natural justice is dependant upon various facts and circumstances. Principles of natural justice are not unruly horses nor are they lurking landmines. There cannot be any straightjacket formulae to apply the principles of natural justice to every situation. Long years ago dealing with some what similar fact situation wherein a set of male students of Rajendra Medical College when they invaded the girls hostel, the Supreme Court in Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi[1] has pointed out that the rest of the students cannot be risked by examining them in the presence of such erring students, as part of application of principles of natural justice. Thus, a fine demarcation has been drawn in the matter of applicability of principles of natural justice, with regard to the context of the matter. I do not therefore consider that the contention canvassed by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without application of the principles of natural justice as sustainable. However, it is open to the petitioner to submit appropriate representation coupled with an assurance from his parents about his continued good conduct, which might be taken into consideration, and an appropriate decision with regard to review of the impugned order may be passed within 15 days of receipt of such representation/assurance. 7. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and hence it is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: October 26, 2010. BSB [1] AIR 1973 SC 1260