AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—By consent of all parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
In this writ petition, the Petitioner haschallenged the order of the second Respondent -managementof a private College, issuing compulsory transfercertificate to the Petitioner on the ground of certainmisconduct and seeking direction to the second Respondentto permit the Petitioner to undergo classes in B.B.A.Course.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) Petitioner is a student of Patrician College ofArts and Science and an unaided minority College, situatedat Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20, and he is doing secondyear B.B.A course. The second Respondent College isaffiliated with the first Respondent University.
(b) It is the case of the Petitioner that thePetitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case on6.2.2011 in Crime No. 309 of 2011 on the file of J8Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai, for an offence underSection 302 I.P.C. The Petitioner filed Crl.O.P. No. 6241 of2011 and obtained an order of bail from this Court by orderdated 14.3.2011.
(c) According to the Petitioner, he was not allowedto attend the classes by the second Respondent from22.3.2011 and therefore he sent a legal notice through his counsel on 28.3.2011. A reply was given by the secondRespondent stating that from 7.2.2011 Petitioner has notattended the college and he was having only 31% ofattendance from November, 2010 to March, 2011 i.e., for 4th Semester.
(d) The Petitioner claims that he is a sportsman, gotmore than 20 certificates and medals and from November,2010 to 7.2.2011, due to his attending Sports events, he isentitled to get attendance for the actual dates of sportsevents and from 7.2.2011 to 22.3.2011 he could not attendthe college because of the case registered against him inthe J8 Neelangarai Police Station.
(e) On 6.4.2011, the Petitioner again approached thesecond Respondent and he was informed that he can get thetransfer certificate and join in some other college as heis having a criminal case against him. Petitioner filedW.P. No. 9326 of 2011 and prayed for a direction and the saidwrit petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2011with a direction to the second Respondent to passappropriate orders within a period of two weeks.
(f) Petitioner was suspended by the management on26.4.2011 and he was directed to submit his detailedexplanation so as to enable the second Respondent to passappropriate orders. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.6.2011 stating that he is innocent and he has notdone any offence or mistake; that he has suffered a lotbecause of the false case; that the college management maypermit him to attend the classes by revoking the order ofsuspension; and that, he will not commit any offence infuture.
(g) The college management viz., DisciplinaryCommittee considered the explanation and passed theimpugned order stating that since the Petitioner is anaccused in a murder case and merely because it has happenedoutside the college campus, the Disciplinary Committeecannot simply close its eyes on such an incident and hencePetitioner's continuation in the college is not conducivefor the academic atmosphere in the college and safety ofother disciplined students.
(h) The said order is challenged in this writpetition on the ground that the alleged involvement in thecriminal case has happened outside the college and thisCourt in Crl.O.P. No. 6241 of 2011 having noticed the factthat the deceased party are unknown to the Petitioner andhis brother, who are the accused, and the deceased partyonly stopped the vehicle in which the Petitioner and hisbrother were travelling and the deceased party are primafacie are the aggressors, the action of the second Respondent management in giving compulsory transfer certificate to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner involved in the said criminal case is not correct. It is further contended that no enquiry was conducted by the second Respondent before the impugnedorder was passed and if the Petitioner was not havingsufficient attendance in the 4th semester, the secondRespondent may readmit the Petitioner in third semester tore-do the course for the purpose of fulfilling theattendance requirement.
The second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:
(i) Second Respondent College is a Self-financingMinority Arts and Science College, not receiving any aidfrom the State Government and therefore the writ petitionis not maintainable.
(ii) On 6.2.2011 a FIR in crime No. 309 of 2011 wasregistered by the J8-Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai,on the ground that the Petitioner stabbed the victim inconnection with a roadside altercation and the victimsuccumbed to the injuries and therefore the Petitioner wasproceeded u/s
302 Indian Penal Code, which came to theknowledge of the management through Newspaper reports aswell as through the Investigating Officer.
Thereafter the Petitioner stopped attending the college without even informing the same to the second Respondent management.
(iii) The observation made by this Court whileconsidering the bail application is only for the disposalof the bail petition and his innocence can be proved onlyafter the trial in the criminal case.
(iv) The Petitioner absented himself and he was havingonly 31% of attendance in the 4th semester and being asports person, the Petitioner cannot claim any immunityfrom the disciplinary rules so far as the College isconcerned. The Petitioner has been given attendance forhis participation in the sports events and even thereafteronly 31% of attendance was calculated and including thesaid dates Petitioner is having 31% of attendance.Actually Petitioner attended classes for 19 days and 8 dayshave been treated as OD attendance and thus he has earnedonly 27 days attendance in the 4th semester which comes to only 31.76%.
(v) It is also stated that even though he failed toattend classes from 7.2.2011, a communication came througha legal notice dated 28.3.2011 and in the earlier writpetition this Court directed to consider the explanation tobe submitted by the Petitioner.
(vi) An enquiry notice was issued on 9.5.2011 toconduct the enquiry on 16.5.2011 at 10.00 a.m. Petitionerand his mother came inside the room of the principal andthe Petitioner was not willing to appear for enquiry beforethe Disciplinary Committee and the Petitioner's mother on16.5.2011 orally pleaded for issuing TC and therefore noenquiry was conducted on the said date. Even thereafter,the Petitioner has not come forward to appear for enquiryor to receive transfer certificate. Petitioner's pastconduct was also put on notice to reply to Petitioner''scounsel notice sent on
2.5.2011.
(vii) In the month of October, 2010, Petitionerinvolved in abuse of words with few 5th semester students ofB.Com in the college campus and students were threatenedwith flashed knife and the management called the Petitionerand warned to correct his behaviour.
(viii) On 8.10.2010 the Petitioner came with hisbrother to the college and gave an apology letter statingthat he will not involve in any more trouble in future.Petitioner used to carry a knife and on earlier occasionsalso he was warned. Therefore continuing the Petitioner inthe college will affect the conducive functioning of thecollege and it will be detrimental to the safety of theother students. Hence the impugned order was passed.
Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit narratingthe incident happened on 6.2.2011, which led toregistration of the criminal complaint against thePetitioner and his brother and subsequent grant of bail bythis Court. For the apology letter given earlier by thePetitioner's brother it is alleged that a correction ismade by the management in the bottom of the letter statingTC to be issued. Petitioner also denied the allegationthat he indulged in violence in the college campus as wellas denied the allegation that he threatened the studentswith knife. He has also stated in the reply affidavit thathe will not indulge in unwanted activities inside thecollege or outside the college and also stated that thePetitioner's mother has not pleaded for issuance of TC.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitionerreiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit andreply affidavit and heavily relied on the order of thisCourt made in Crl.O.P. No. 6241 of 2011 dated 14.3.2011.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent as well as second Respondent.
I have considered the rival submissions of thelearned Counsel for the Petitioner, first Respondent andsecond Respondent and also the pleadings.
A report about the Petitioner, recorded by the Principal of the College on 8.10.2010 and the subsequentwarning issued to the Petitioner is filed at page 1 of thetyped set of papers filed by the second Respondent.Petitioner's brother gave a letter on 8.10.2010 to thePrincipal stating that the Petitioner may be excused forhis mistakes and in the bottom of the letter it is endorsedby the Principal that "next time TC to be issued".
The Petitioner is named as an accused inCr. No. 309 of 2011 on the file of the J8-Neelangarai PoliceStation, Chennai, for an offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code andhe is arrayed as one of the accused. Petitioner and hisbrother were let on bail by this Court on 14.3.2011 isestablished by perusing the copy of the FIR as well as theorder passed by this Court. During the 4th semesterPetitioner is having only 31% of the attendance includingthe other duty attendance granted for attending sportsevents. Petitioner was issued with a suspension order-cum-show cause notice on 26.4.2011 and he was asked to submithis explanation as to why he should not be expelled fromthe college.
The Petitioner earlier approached this Court byfiling W.P. No. 9326 of 2011 and prayed for a direction topermit him to attend the classes for BBA course and towrite the University examination to be held in April, 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on22.6.2011.
This Court, noticing the lack of attendancei.e, 31% of attendance as against the minimum requirementof 50%, directed the Petitioner to submit his explanationfor the show cause notice dated 26.4.2011 and the secondRespondent was directed to consider the same and grantedliberty to the second Respondent to readmit the Petitionerto re-do his second year course for the purpose offulfilling the attendance requirement. The secondRespondent was directed to pass appropriate orders withintwo weeks. Thereafter the Petitioner submitted anexplanation on 23.6.2011 stating that he has not committedany offence and he will not commit any offence in future.
The Disciplinary Committee of the managementconsidered the explanation of the Petitioner and alsodirected the Petitioner to appear for an enquiry on30.6.2011. The Committee asked about the past conduct ofthe Petitioner regarding the incident happened duringOctober, 2010, where a verbal altercation took place withVISCOM students outside the college and whether thePetitioner indulged in violence. Petitioner has given aletter of undertaking on 8.10.2010 for good conduct infuture and it was also noticed that he had agreed to takeTC if found indulged in such activities next time. The Petitioner said to have replied that it is a past conduct happened outside the college. The Disciplinary Committee of the College consisting of the Principal, CorRespondent, Vice Principal, Head of the Department, and Class-in charge, took an unanimous decision and the operative portion of the decision reads as follows:
The Committee is of theopinion that the student instead ofaddressing the charge levelled againsthim is trying to skirt the issues bytaking into shelter that the earlierconduct is one inside the college andthe present case is a false charge.Both the issues cannot be segregated.If the incident outside is not acriminal case, the student may be rightand the college may not take intocognizance of the incident. The incidenthappened outside is a murder and thestudent admits that an FIR u/s 302 has been registered against him.The college simply cannot close its eyeson such an incident which exists thereprima facie. The student has not comeforward with any extenuatingcircumstances and the DisciplinaryCommittee is of the view that thestudent Brian Nathan Jude's continuationis not conducive for the academicatmosphere in the college and the safety of other disciplined students has to be given primary importance.
If the FIR in Cr. No. 309 of2011 on the file of J8 Neelankarai PS isperused, the student along with hisbrother has allegedly indulged inkilling one Seenu for an altercation.In October, 2010 also the student has indulged in violence for an altercation with VISCOM students inside the college.From this it is evident that the student has a nature to indulge in violence onslightest provocation. To continue with such a student would endanger the safety of others.
Under these circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee is of unanimous view that the Student Brian Jude shouldnot be continued in the college and hemust be issued his Transfer Certificate and decides to issue the Transfer Certificate of the student Brian Nathan Jude II Year BBA student of the college to him.
Pursuant to the said decision taken it was unanimously resolved to discontinue the Petitioner from the secondRespondent college. Thereafter the impugned order was communicated giving direction to the Petitioner to come and collect the TC in the office of the second Respondent College at the earliest.
Since the Petitioner is having previous antecedent of indulging in violent activity and he tender edapology and at that time he was specifically informed that his future indulgence will lead to issuance of TC itself, is an intimation that the Petitioner's behaviour inside thecollege is not proper. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner is in possession of knife always and therefore the college has to look into the welfare of other students for maintaining conducive academic atmosphere and safety of others. The said decision having been taken by the Disciplinary Committee members unanimously, which is running the institution, the scope of reviewing the said decision is very limited. As directed by this Court, Petitioner was already afforded an opportunity of submitting explanation. Petitioner is also involved in a criminal case and he is on bail till date.
The discipline of the students inside and outside the college came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions:
a) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others, ;
b) P. Senthil, T. Jayasingh, S. Jayarathinam, M. Chandran, D. Rajesh, E. Suresh and M. Shanker Vs. The Principal, SIVET College, Dr. Balasundaram, S. Coordinator, Enquiry Committee, SIVET College, The Registrar, University of Madras, The Director of Collegiate Education, The Director, Government Scholarship Department and The Secretary, SIVET College, ;
c) 1988 WLR 343 (M.Murugan v. Director of Higher Secondary Education);
d) Ashok Kumar etc. Vs. Director of Technical Education and Others, ;
e) 1996 WLR 341 (K.P.Jayapal Asan v. Vice Principal-in charge, Scott Christian College and Anr.); and
e) Maharaja Prithvi Engineering College Vs. The Director of Technical Education and The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, In the decision reported in 1996 WLR 341 (supra), this Court in paragraphs 13 to 15 held thus,
The learned Counsel for theRespondents submitted few decisions insupport of his above contentions. Heplaced reliance on the decisionreported in Murugan v. Director ofHigher Secondary Education (1988 WLR343). In the said decision inparagraph 8 the Court has observed asfollows:
It is well settled by now that astudent, so long as he behaves himselfproperly, in a disciplined way in otherwords, as a student ought to have, hasevery right to prosecute his studies.Such a right cannot be interfered with.As against this, should there be anyact of indiscipline which is notconducive to the interests of theInstitution, and which will pollute theeducational atmosphere of theinstitution or the calm of theInstitution, certainly, the school authorities have every right to seethat such a student who would notbehave himself in a disciplined way isexpelled from the school. Apart fromthe fact that such an indisciplinedstudent is not only an undesirableelement who spoils his own future, hisconduct and character will havedeleterious effect on others as well.
The other decision on whichreliance was placed by the learnedcounsel for the Respondents is reportedin Leo Francis Xaviour Vs. The Principal, Karunya Institute of Technology, Coimbatore and another, , wherein the Courtobserved at paragraph 26 as follows:
As it is found on the facts thatthere was an enquiry satisfying therequirements of the principles ofnatural justice, this Court cannotinterfere with the finding of theEnquiry Committee and the consequentialorder of expulsion passed against thePetitioner. The plea taken by thefirst Respondent that it is a privatecollege and the jurisdiction of thisCourt under Article 226 of theConstitution of India cannot be invokedby the Petitioner against the saidCollege is well founded. In as much asthe principles of natural justice havebeen complied with, this Court has o jurisdiction to interfere with theorder of expulsion passed against thePetitioner.
The learned Counsel for theRespondents also placed reliance on theunreported judgment of this Court in A.Ravichandran v. The Madurai KamarajUniversity, rep. by its Registrar(W.P. No. 1506 of 1991, Dt.27.2.1991) which has taken the same view and thesame has been confirmed by a DivisionBench of this Court in W.A. No. 370 of1991.
In the above said decisions it is held that astudent in an educational institution is entitled tocontinue his studies only if he behaves like a student.Indiscipline inside/outside the campus cannot be toleratedto maintain dignity and safety of other students as well asinstitution. Though the Petitioner was given a chance tocorrect himself on one occasion, he has not utilised thesaid opportunity. In the impugned order also Petitioner is directed to get TC and by receiving the same he can pursue his studies in any other college. Therefore his right tocontinue his education is not totally affected, may be heis prevented from attending classes in the secondRespondent college.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the second Respondent is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. This order will not preclude the Petitioner from approaching the second Respondent from reconsidering their decision and it is upto the second Respondent to consider the said request and take a decision.