IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33381 of 2010(W)
1. ABDUL BASIL NALAKATHU,
... Petitioner
2. KRISHNA KIRAN P., ROLL NO.B.090120 AR,
3. MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN K.A.,
4. SHEREEF T.P.,
5. B.MANIDEEP REDDY,
6. ANEESH S.MANTHANATHU,
Vs
1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
... Respondent
2. THE SENETE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE
3. THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED VIDE
4. DR.M.A.NAZEER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,
5. ANJUM NAVEED, ROLL NO.B.100436 AR,
6. AJU NIVAS, ROLL NO.B.100483 AR,
7. ARAVIND P.MOHAN,
8. FEBIN SEBY, ROLL NO.B.100374 AR,
9. RAJEEV RAMAKRISHNAN,
10. P.A.DILEEP KUMAR,
11. SABIR KARYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.33381 OF 2010(W)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners who were 3rd semester B. Arch students at the
National Institute of Technology, Calicut are seeking to quash
Exts.P1 and P6, by which the petitioners were placed under
suspension and punished by suspending them for the period
mentioned in Ext.P6 order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ext.P9 in the writ petition
is the students’ Conduct and Disciplinary Code 2007 framed by
the first respondent, which regulates conduct of the students.
Section 6 enumerates the misconducts and section 7 provides
the disciplinary sanctions. In so far as it is relevant, for the
purpose of this case on 9.8.2010, the Chief Warden of the hostel
of the first respondent received Ext.R1(a) series of complaints
submitted by respondents 5 to 11 who are Ist year students. In
these complaints respondents alleged various acts of misconducts
on the part of the petitioners and certain other students. On
receipt of the complaints, on 10.8.2010, the Chief Warden
constituted a Committee of 7 members from the staff to conduct
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:2 :
an enquiry into the allegations of misconducts. Accordingly, the
committee enquired into the allegations, questioned the
petitioners, the alleged victims and other students and submitted
Ext.R1(b) report. In the report, they found that 13 students were
ragged in the college hostel and that the complaints filed by
respondents 5 to 11 were genuine. Thereafter the committee
recommended suspension of the delinquents for a minimum
period of one semester and to expel them from the hostels. It is
to be noted that this report was made after questioning
respondents 5 to 11, who reiterated their allegations before the
Enquiry Committee. Accepting Ext.R1(b) report, the first
respondent issued Ext.P1 order dated 11th August, 2010,
suspending 11 students including the petitioners herein for a
minimum period of one year. It was also ordered that case shall
be referred to the police for further action.
3. Counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that
on the issuance of Ext.P1 order of suspension, Exts.P2 and P3
representations were made by the students and their parents on
16.8.2010 where they requested for a re-enquiry. It is stated
that on receipt of Exts.P2 and P3, first respondent constituted a
committee of two Professors and two Assistant Professors to
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:3 :
conduct a re-enquiry into the matter. After due deliberations, the
committee issued Ext.P4 series of memo of charges to the
petitioners in which various allegations of misconducts which also
amounted to ragging as defined under the Act, are incorporated.
On receipt of Ext.P4 series of memo of charges the petitioners
submitted their explanations, a specimen copy of which is Ext.P5.
In the explanation submitted, they denied the allegations and
requested that they be exonerated of the charges and that the
suspension may be cancelled with retrospective effect. Ext.R1(c)
is the report submitted by the Committee. This report also shows
that notice was issued not only to the complainants but also to
the petitioners and that after recording their statements, verifying
all previous documents, the Committee submitted the report with
its findings and recommendations. The report was considered by
the first respondent, the disciplinary authority, and the
disciplinary authority thereafter issued Ext.P6 dated 14th
September, 2010, which shows that petitioners 1,2,4,5 and 6
were imposed punishment of suspension up to 14.9.2010 and the
3rd petitioner was suspended for the period up to 24.9.2010. On
the issuance of Ext.P6 order of punishment, Ext.P7 representation
was made by the parent of one of the petitioners requesting that
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:4 :
he be permitted to appear for the 3rd and 4th semesters, if he has
80% attendance excluding the suspension period. It is stated that
thereafter they also submitted Ext.P8 appeal against Ext.P6 order
of punishment. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed
seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P6 and to direct the first respondent
to grant attendance to the petitioners from the date of Ext.P1 or
to exclude the said period while calculating 80% attendance for
the purpose of writing the 3rd semester examination.
4. According to the petitioners, they did not indulge in any
act of ragging or committed any misconducts in terms of the
provisions contained in Ext.P9. It is further stated that when the
matter was referred to the police, police summoned respondent 5
to 11 and that in the statements given before the police
respondents 5 to 11 denied the allegation that they were
subjected any act of ragging. It is stated that on that basis the
case which was registered against them was referred by the
police and therefore the case having lost its very foundation, the
proceedings initiated against them is unsustainable. It is on that
basis petitioners seeks to quash Exts.P1 and P6.
5. At the stage of admission this court passed an interim
order dated 9.11.2010 directing respondents 1 to 3 to allow the
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:5 :
petitioners to appear in 3rd semester examination. On that basis
petitioners appeared for the examination, but however their
results are withheld.
6. At the outset, it should be stated that Ext.R1(b) is the
enquiry report on the basis of which the petitioners were placed
under suspension. Ext.R1(b) enquiry report shows that
misconducts as defined Ext.P9 conduct rules have been found
against the petitioners. It is also to be stated that before
submitting Ext.R1(c) report, the Committee had issued Ext.P4
series of memo of charges to the delinquents. Thereafter notice
was issued by the committee, not only to the petitioners but also
to respondents 5 to 11, the victims. Although it is a fact that
when the police questioned them, respondents 5 to 11
contended that they were not ragged and that this contention
was reiterated before this court also, before the enquiry
committees on both occasions, the victims had reiterated their
allegations as evidenced by Exts.R1(a) complaint made by them
on 9.8.2010. It is based on those statements and deposition made
and other evidence collected and available before the
Committee, that the Committee submitted Ext.R1(c) report.
Having gone through the reports and the findings contained
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:6 :
therein, I am inclined to take the view that the Committee cannot
be said to have committed any procedural irregularities nor can
this court hold that the Committee has entered into any factual
finding which can be criticized as perverse. If this be the situation,
the findings will have to be upheld and further question that
arises for consideration is whether the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, as per Ext.P6 can
be said to be a disproportionate one warranting to be interfered
with this court.
7. Ext.P9 is the rules governing the students. Section 7 of
Ext.P9 lists out the disciplinary sanctions. Section 7(1) deals with
the minor sanctions and Section 7(2) contains the major
sanctions. The major sanctions provided are debarring from
examinations, suspension, restitution, forfeiture and expulsion.
Among the punishments enumerated under Section 7(11), there is
no punishment which can be said to be lesser than what is
imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
punishment imposed on the petitioners is a disproportionate one.
True, petitioners relied on Ext.P16 judgment. In Ext.P16 judgment
rendered, the Delhi High Court interfered with an order wherein
the students were found to have committed ragging and were
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:7 :
expelled. First of all, in this case petitioners have not been found
guilty of ragging but they have been found guilty of misconducts
as defined in Ext.P9. More over a close reading of Ext.P16
judgment shows that the petitioners in Ext.P16 were expelled
from the college and on the ground that the punishment imposed
was disproportionate the Court interfered with it. In this case the
punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate and
consequently, the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court
cannot be of any application to the facts of the case.
8. As far as the contention that the criminal case has been
referred is concerned, that development would have had impact
on the proceedings against the petitioners provided, they were
punished on allegations of ragging as defined under the Act. On
the other hand finding in Ext.R1(c) report is that petitioners have
committed misconducts as defined in Ext.P9, the Conduct Rules
that are applicable. Therefore, the fact that police referred the
case of ragging can have no significance in so far as the
disciplinary proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners
are concerned.
9. It is true that the complainants, respondents 5 to 11 have
retracted from Ext.R1(a) series of complaints when their
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:8 :
statements were recorded by the investigating officer. They also
reiterated this stand before this court. But however fact remains
that both in Ext.R1(a) and when preliminary enquiry and final
enquiry were held by the disciplinary committee, they stood by
this statements. It was on that basis, Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) reports
have been submitted by the Enquiry Committees. Therefore, even
if it is assumed that they have later retracted from their
statements, that cannot invalidate or upset the findings of the
enquiry committees.
10. In the writ petition allegations have been raised against
the 4th respondent and according to the petitioners it was at the
instance of the 4th respondent, that the entire proceedings were
initiated against them. First of all, counter affidavit has been filed
by the first respondent, stating in clear terms that the 4th
respondent had nothing to do with the disciplinary action initiated
against the petitioners. When mala fides are alleged, the burden
is heavily upon the person who makes the allegations to prove
the same. Apart from making allegations, petitioners have not
placed anything implicating the 4th respondent. Although it is true
that the 4th respondent has not come forward and filed any
affidavit, in the light of dearth of materials supplied by the
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:9 :
petitioners to support their contention and in the light of the
categoric statement made by the first respondent, I am not
satisfied that the 4th respondent is guilty of any mala fides.
Therefore, I reject the plea of mala fides raised by the petitioners.
11. There is also a contention raised in the writ petition that
the petitioners have filed Ext.P8 appeal against the order of
punishment imposed on them. However, in the counter affidavit of
the first respondent, the stand taken by the first respondent is
that such an appeal has not been received by them. Apparently,
in view of the statement so filed, in the reply affidavit filed
petitioners have stated that they have filed another set of appeal
which are pending before the first respondent. As per the terms
of the Conduct Rules, if an appeal is filed, the appeal has to be
considered by the Senate. If a fresh set of appeals have been
filed before the respondents, it is incumbent on the part of the
first respondent to place it before the Senate.
12. Now that I have upheld the order of punishment and
since Ext.P12 regulation prescribes at least 80% attendance for
attending the examination, it is obvious that the petitioners have
dearth of attendance for writing the examination. Therefore I
decline to issue any further directions to publish the result of the
WPC.No. 33381/2010
:10 :
3rd semester examination that the petitioners have appeared
based on the interim orders of this court. However, it is clarified
that in case the appellate authority decides the appeals in favour
of the petitioners, appropriate orders shall be passed by the first
respondent.
13. Needless to say that the observations herein made
about the misconducts committed by the petitioners or other
matters, shall not influence the appellate authority which shall
deal with the appeals submitted by the petitioners untramelled by
any observations in this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/