THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2255 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 4th 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 (IT) III year II semester examinations to be conducted by the 1st respondent, namely Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The petitioner is studying B.Tech (IT) III 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 4th 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 following the death of one N. Bhargava, some anti-social elements led by a TRS leader, who happens to be a relative of the victim, tried to attack the management of the 4th respondent-college, and the 4th respondent- college, to overcome the ire of the said anti-social elements, has issued the impugned proceedings rusticating the petitioner and four others from the college. He submitted that only a crime has been registered, and as of now, no investigation has been done and no charge sheet is filed, and even before the petitioner is found guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide is alleged against him, the impugned proceedings, was issued by the 4th respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he submits that the impugned proceedings passed by the 4th 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 (IT) III year II semester examinations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-University and the learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents-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. Bhargav, in which he is arrayed as A2. The victim, in his suicide note, named the petitioner along with two others, as being responsible for the cause for his suicide. In the remand case diary of the police also, the name of the petitioner is shown as A2. Consequent upon the death of the student, the 4th respondent, having regard to the allegations of harassment and beating, placed four students, including the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, the 4th 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. It is this rustication order which the petitioner sought to question in the writ petition. There is no doubt that the case registered against the petitioner and four others is at the initial stage, and no charge sheet is filed therein, and that it would take some time to establish the guilt of the accused. But the impugned proceedings, passed by the 4th respondent, is as an administrative measure, and has been passed, with a view to maintain discipline in the student community and ensure that the incidents of the nature do not recur in future and students do not resort to such illegal acts in the college premises. It is not that the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order in a routine and mechanical manner. 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, has ordered the Enquiry Committee to meet at 10.30 a.m. on 29.11.2008 in the College, and directed the accused to appear for enquiry. The Enquiry Committee, having conducted the enquiry, and based on the materials 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, including that of the petitioner, was found in the suicide note, who were said to be directly responsible for the cause of the suicide. The Enquiry Committee further found that the petitioner and another person, were actually the persons who stole the cell phones, but shifted the blame on to the victim. That unable to bear this harassment, the victim is said to have 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 cannot be now allowed to contend that no notice whatsoever was issued to him before the impugned proceedings, rusticating him from the college was passed nor can he be allowed to say that since the guilt against him is yet to be established, the 4th respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order, rusticating him from the college. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 17th March, 2009 KSR