N. Ramkumar vs Kamaraj College of Engineering and Technology and The Anna University of Technology

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner was studying in the first respondent college. He had joined the course and admitted through single window system for the academic year 2009-2010 in the B. Tech Polymer Technology which is an under graduate course.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent dated 15.06.2011. By the impugned order, the petitioner was dismissed from the college for his alleged involvement in the theft activities in the college campus on 04.06.2011.

Though the petitioner had impleaded the Anna University of Technology, Tirunelveli Campus as well as the Controller of Examinations and the Centre for Students Affairs, no relief claimed against them.

On notice from this Court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 13.10.2011 justifying the action initiated against the petitioner. They have also filed a typed set containing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit dated 14.11.2011.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent impugned in this writ petition is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

It is seen from the academic records of the petitioner that in the three semesters that he has undergone, he is yet to clear six subjects. It is stated that on 04.06.2011, the petitioner has dismantled the surveillance cameras kept in the first floor corridor of ''C'' Block. Thereafter, when the cameras found missing, the authorities have seen the footage of the images captured in the computer system attached to the cameras, it clearly showed the involvement of the petitioner and one other student Selvam in the process of dismantling the cameras from the place it was kept for surveillance. The parents of the petitioner have been duly summoned and the footage was screening to them. So that they can satisfy the actual involvement of the petitioner. Thereafter, the college formed enquiry committee comprising of five teachers including the Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, Assitant Professor, Department of Electronics & Communication Engineering, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Professor, Department of Bio-Technology and the Head, Department of Polymer Technology. The committed examined the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter to the University in which it is stated that on 04.06.2011, he examined the surveillance cameras as to how it was functioning and while he was doing came off, he should not re-fix the same and therefore ,left it in a nearby place and went to his house. When the committee examined him, he accepted the dismantling of the cameras. But however, forced out of the petitioner as if he has stolen the cameras. Though the conduct of the petitioner was regrettable but considering his future, the college must reconsider their decision.

Pursuant to the same, the University called for a report from the first respondent and the committee made the following recommendations:

Although the students accepted to removing the camera, they never revealed their intentions for doing the same. So, the committee members are of the strong view that the students might involve in such acts repeatedly in future.

Even when given the opportunity to realize and apologize to the management for their wrong deeds, the students did not show their willingness to accept their mistakes. At this backdrop, the committee members strongly feel that the students do not have sense of guilt and did not any signs of improving in their moral values.

Based on the above facts, it is strongly decided by the committee members that the students are not inclined towards academic pursuit and are not fit to continue their studies at this institution. Further, we recommend that Mr. N. Ramkumar (Roll No.2940033) and Mr. M. Selvam (Roll No.2940003) be dismissed from the institution as this will instill a sense of discipline in the minds of other students.

We also recommend the management to recover the cost of missing items before the installation of surveillance camera as there is likelihood of the student''s involvement in earlier actions to.

In this case, a counter affidavit filed by the first respondent management and in Paragraph 11, it was averred as follows:

The petitioner along with his colleague involved in a crime with in the college premises itself. The petitioner had removed the surveillance cameras which are installed to cover the behaviour of the students within the college premises. So the idea behind the removal of the camera cannot be taken in lighter vein. The averment of the petitioner is that because of eagerness to learn about the working condition of a surveillance cameras is totally unacceptable. He has come to the college to study his subject and he is not excepted to involve in the learning process of other fields. Even assuming for arguments sake, he ought to have informed the authorities about the consequences and try to rectify the same. If he is bona fide in his acts he would have informed the authorities about his learning attitude. But he had concealed the cameras and kept the same for the ten days in his possession and he handed over the same to the enquiry committee. He had not admitted his wrong doing until he was traced by the recorded footage captured in central computer system. If such technological evidence is not available, definitely the petitioner will not admit his proven theft and will definitely involve in future crimes. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is renowned institution for its discipline and academic excellence. The management had taken the decision of removal of the candidates from the institution is purely on the basis of better administration and for the welfare of the other students. It can enforce the discipline among the students only by taking stern action against erring students like this. This petitioner did not deserve any mercy because he had indulged in a crime like theft of college property. The other student namely, Selvam accepted the decision and left the college after getting his documents.

It is not a case where the petitioner is not involved in the theft and it is only in that portion of the charge regarding the theft, the petitioner makes a dispute. According to the petitioner, after the cameras were removed, he has left it in a nearby places and left. In this context, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent assumes importance and they also stated that the other student Selvam who accepted the charges has taken documents and the left the campus but for some reason it is the curiosity of the petitioner which resulted in the removal of the cameras then he should promptly inform the authorities about the same. Leaving the cameras in some other place and only when his image got trapped in the camera and in the footage which was downloaded from the computer system, the petitioner involvement came to notice. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to enforce discipline among the students. In the absence of any legal flaw in the action against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.