JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J.
1. The parties to the lis are governed by the provisions of Karnataka Education Act. 1983. (‘Act’ for short) read with Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools), Rules, 1990 (‘Rules’ for short).
2. Petitioner, who has suffered an order of suspension of his Educational Carrer, and was allowed to attend the classes only on the condition that his parents/guardian would give a necessary undertaking for good behaviour on or before 16-3-1998 and after leaving the first respondent college for good, is before this Court for the following reliefs. They are :
I. To quash the impugned order dated 3-3-1998 vide Ref.B/504/98/YDC dated 3-3-1998 passed by the respondent vide Annexure R.
II. For a direction to the respondent to return the amounts paid by him for prosecuting his carrer in the respondent College after deducting the tuition fee for the Ist and IInd year B.D.S. course i.e. deducting Rs. 1,03,850/- out of Rs. 7.5 lakhs i.e. Rs. 6,46,150/-.
3. Facts in detail need not be noticed by me since it is an admitted fact that petitioner was admitted to the first respondent institution as First Year B.D.S. student. While he was studying in the First Year Course. he was issued with a show cause notice dated 6-2-1998. In the said notice, it was alleged that petitioner has indulged himself in the verbal ragging of First Year B.D.S. students and money robbing. The arguments advanced at the time of hearing of the petition requires to be resolved on the basis of the allegations alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is extracted and it reads as under :
Sub : Intimation of suspension cum show cause notice.
Upon receiving reliable information, the Dean and the Management of the college have conducted preliminary enquiry and are satisfied that you have indulged in ragging of very serious order, the particulars of which are mentioned herebelow and as such you have misconducted in a manner not building your status as student of this Institution and the indiscipline is of such magnitude that allowing you to remain in the campus of the college is not in the interest of the discipline of the Institution and as such, pending further enquiry into the matter, you are hereby suspended from attending the classes of the college with effect from 6-2-1998 until further orders.
Details of indiclpline — Verbal ragging of I.B.D.S. students and money robing.
You are, therefore, hereby directed not to enter the College Compus and hostels during the period of suspension.
We hereby call upon you to give your written explanation to the above charges of indiscipline. The explanation should reach the undersigned on or before 16-2-1998.
If no explanation in writing is received accordingly, it will be considered that you have no explanation to offer and you are admitting the guilt and necessary action will be taken as deemed fit and proper in the interest of institution and the discipline to be maintained in the campus.”
4. After receipt of the notice, the same was replied by the petitioner by his reply letter dated 9-2-1998. In that, he had denied the allegations contained in the show cause notice, and also had offered his explanation.
5. The Principal and the Management of the first respondent Institution, had appointed an enquiry committee to enquire into the allegations of indiscipline made in the show cause notice since they were not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner. After such constitution, the enquiry committee had directed the petitioner to appear before them for enquiry on 18-2-1998 for detailed investigation. After receipt of the findings of the enquiry committee, the first respondent institution has passed the impugned order, keeping the petitioner under suspension.
6. At this stage, I should notice that the first respondent institution had appointed three Lecturers working in the Institution, as the members of the enquiry committee. The enquiry committee after recording the evidence of the petitioner and also the other students, have come to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the allegations made in the show cause notice and therefore, should be mulcted with a punishment of suspension from attending the classes. The findings of the enquiry committee is accepted by the first respondent Management and the same is given effect to by passing the impugned order.
7. After this episode, petitioner was not inclined to continue his studies in the first respondent institution, and therefore, he had approached the first respondent institution to Issue necessary certificate to enable him to join a different College to prosecute his studies, and since the first respondent institution had refused to hand over the certificates to him, he had made an appropriate application before_this Court to direct the first respondent Institution to return the original certificates and other documents to facilitate him to join some other college for the very same course. This Court by its order dated 5-8-1998 was pleased to direct the first respondent institution to return the original certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of his admission to the First Year B.D.S. Course in the first respondent Institution. After securing those certificates, it appears, petitioner has joined a different college to prosecute his studies in Dental Course.
8. As 1 have already stated, petitioner before this Court is requesting for two reliefs. One is to quash the order made by the management of the first respondent Institution after accepting the report of the country committee, and the other is to refund the tuition fees paid by him for the first and second year Course after deducting a particular amount.
9. Smt. Manjula Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following issues for consideration and decision of this Court.
Firstly that the committee constituted by the management of the first respondent institution is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, and therefore, based on the report of the illegally and improperly constituted committee, the management could not have imposed any punishment much less punishment as has been done by them by their order dated 3-3-1998.
Secondly, the learned Counsel would contend that the findings of the enquiry committee constituted to Inquire into the allegations and accusations made in the show cause notice is totally different for which the petitioner was directed to show cause and offer his explanation and therefore, based on such a report, the management could not have Imposed any punishment much less punishment of suspension from attending the classes.
Thirdly, it is contended that the Indiscipline alleged against the petitioner would not fall within the definition of ragging as envisaged under Section 2(29) of the Act. Lastly, it is stated that the punishment imposed by the management is contrary to the provisions of Section 116 of the Act.
These are the only submissions advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner with regard to the first relief sought in the writ petition.
10. In so far as the second relief is concerned, learned Counsel for petitioner contends, that the management of the first respondent institution could not have collected a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs from the petitioner towards the tution fees, and the same is contrary and in violation of the fee structure prescribed by the State Government. Secondly, since petitioner did not prosecute his studies in the first respondent institution, he is entitled for the refund of the tution fees collected. Therefore, a request is made for refund of a sum of Rs. 6,46,150/- to the petitioner. In support of the said relief, learned Counsel invites my attention to the observations made by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sameer Anand v. State of Punjab and the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Venkatesha Education Society (Regd.), Bangalore reported in (1999) 4 Kant LJ 381.
11. Per contra, Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the impugned order made by the respondent management dated 3-3-1998 and further contends that since petitioner was admitted to the First Year B.D.S. Course against N.R.I, quota, the respondents have collected a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs as prescribed in the brochure issued by the State Government dated 17-9-1993, and therefore submits that petitioner is not entitled to the second relief sought in the writ petition.
12. The questions that require to be considered and decided by this Court are :
I. Whether the committee constituted by the respondent management is a valid committee as required under Section 42 of the Act for the purpose of holding an enquiry against the petitioner and others for act of indiscipline and to have been committed by them in the first respondent college?
II. Whether the respondent management having alleged a particular indiscipline against the petitioner, could have accepted a report, which is contrary to the allegations, made in the show cause notice?
III. Whether the allegations made against the petitioner comes within the meaning of the expression ‘ragging’ as defined under Section 2(29) of the Act?
IV. Whether the punishment imposed by the respondent management is in accordance with the provisions of Section 116 of the Act?
V. Whether petitioner is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs. 6,46, 150/- as claimed by him in the writ petition?
13. Section 42 of the Act provides for
constitution of the managing committee for a private educational institution.
Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act says that every recognised private educational institution shall have a managing committee by whatever name it is called.
Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act envisages that the managing committee shall be reconstituted once in two years.
Sub-section (3), of Section 42 of the Act envisages that the managing committee shall consist of not less than eleven and not more than fifteen members nominated by the Governing Council of whom not less than three including the academic head of the Institution and two members of the teaching staff shall be representatives of teachers of the institution and at least two others shall be representatives of parents selected in accordance with the prescribed rules.
14. Now the question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is whether the committee that is constituted by the management for the purpose of holding an enquiry against the petitioner for the alleged act of indiscipline is in consonance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act?
15. In the Instant case, an act of indiscipline is alleged against a student studying in a particular course. The management intends to hold an enquiry into that allegation. For that purpose, the management need not have to fall back on Section 42 of the Act in constituting an enquiry committee. Further, the allegation against the petitioner is with regard to verbal ragging of a student. The management feels that, that act of Indiscipline should be enquired into by a committee consisting of Lecturers of the college. In a committee of that nature, in my opinion, the representatives of the teachers, representatives of the parents, representatives of the members of the teaching staff, etc., are absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, the committee that is constituted by the respondent management may not be in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, but the same has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Secondly, the purpose of the Constitution of the managing committee as provided under Section 42 of the Act is wholly for different purpose and that would not bar the management in constituting a committee of three Lecturers for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the allegations of indiscipline. In that view of the matter, the first contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court. Accordingly, it is rejected.
16. Section 2(29), of the Act defines the meaning of the expression ‘ragging’. It means, causing, inducing, compelling or forcing a student, whether by way of a practical joke or otherwise, to do any act which detracts from human or violates his person or exposes him to redicule or to forbear from doing any lawful act, by intimidating, wrongfully restraining, wrongfully confining, or injuring him or by using criminal force to him or by holding out to him any threat of such intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement. injury or the use of criminal force.
17. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice issued on 6-2-1998 is, that he verbally ragged First Year B.D.S. students. This act of the petitioner, in my opinion, would definitely fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ragging’ which finds a place at Section 2(29) of the Act, By verbally abusing his colleague, in my opinion, would definitely detracts the human dignity and violates his person. Therefore, the allegation of verbal ragging would definitely fall under Section 2(29) of the Act.
18. The other question that now requires to be considered is :
Whether the enquiry committee could have inquired into an allegation which was not made known to the petitioner in the show cause notice and based on such a report whether the management could have imposed the impugned punishment?
19. In my opinion, this requires to be answered in favour of the petitioner, for the reason, by a notice dated 6-2-1998. the respondent management had Indicated the details of indiscipline said to have been committed by the petitioner. According to them, petitioner had indulged himself in verbal ragging of 1 year B.D.S. students and money robbing. The committee, which was constituted to enquire into this particular allegation, in the report dated 18-2-1998, would not include the name of the petitioner though petitioner was examined as one of the witnesses on that particular date. Further, the committee in its finding states Group-C students’ where the name of the petitioner was included, needs to be punished for physical assault.
20. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is explained by this Court as well as Apex Court in number of cases. It is to put on guard the accused person to know the exact allegations made against him and the enquiry that he is required to face before an enquiry committee. In the instant case, petitioner was told that he had indulged himself in verbally ragging of the first year B.D.S. students. This allegation had been denied by the petitioner when he filed his reply dated 9-2-1998. The enquiry committee without holding an enquiry into that allegation which is notified to the petitioner in their show cause notice, finds him guilty of some other offence, namely, physical assault of B.D.S. students. At no point of time, petitioner was made known by the enquiry committee that the enquiry will be held against the petitioner not only for the act of Indiscipline of verbal ragging but also for a physical assault. Further, the enquiry committee does not state in its finding that petitioner had verbally ragged the First year B.D.S. students. In view of all this, it can be safely said that the notice issued against the petitioner is for a different offence and the findings of the enquiry committee is altogether on a different offence. In my opinion, basing on such a finding, the respondent management could not have Imposed the punishment dated 3-3-1993.
21. The next question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is :
Whether the punishment imposed by the respondent management is in accordance with the provisions of Section 116 of the Act?
22. Section 116 of the Act provides for penalty for ragging.
Sub-section (1) of Section 116 of the Act says that, no person who is a student of an educational institution including an institution under the direct management of the University or of the Central Government shall commit ragging.
Sub-section (2) of Section 116 of the Act says that any person who contravenes Sub-section (1) shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both.
23. In my view, the aforesaid provision has no application for the purpose of this case. If for any reason, a student of an educational Institution is convicted by a Magistrate’s Court on a complaint filed by the Private Educational Institution or an institution under the direct management or the University or the Central Government, he may be convicted with an imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both, in that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned Counsel for petitioner requires to be noticed only to be rejected.
24. The question whether the management of private educational institution could have imposed any punishment based on the report of the inquiry committee is a mute question and the same need not be answered by me, since it was not argued by learned Counsel for petitioner.
25. Now the question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is :
Whether petitioner is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs. 6,46,150/-?
26. Learned Counsel for petitioner contends that the respondent management could not have collected a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs from the petitioner towards the tuition fee and the same is contrary to the fee structure prescribed by the State Government and therefore, the respondent management should be directed to refund the excess amount to the petitioner. Per contra, Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent management contends that since the admission of the petitioner is against an N.R.I. quota and since the collection of the tuition fees by the management is !n accordance with the brochure issued by the State Government dated 17-9-1993, petitioner is not entitled for the refund of the amount. The respondents along with their statement of objections have produced the brochure issued by the State Government dated 17-9-1993. By the said order, the State Government has fixed the upper limit chargeable for under-graduate courses against free seats, payment seats and NRI seats by the private Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Colleges in the Karnataka. In so far as the N.R.I, seats are concerned, the upper limit that is fixed by the State Government is $ 3000, which is inclusive of development fees also. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner. since petitioner is not an N.R.I, the respondent management could not have collected the fees as prescribed under the Government Order dated 17-9-1993. That is not the question before this Court. The question is, having got himself admitted under a particular quota, whether petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount? Secondly, according to petitioner, his admission is not against N.R.I, quota, whereas respondents on oath contends that admission of the petitioner to First Year B.D.S. Course is against N.R.I, quota and therefore, they have charged him $ 3000 which is inclusive of development fees. In my opinion, these are matters, which involve complicated questions of fact, which require a detail investigation. These complicated questions cannot be resolved by a Writ Court. Therefore, the second relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition on this count cannot be granted by this Court.
27. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
I. Writ petition is allowed in part. Rule made absolute to that extent only.
II. The impugned order made by the management of the first respondent Institution dated 3-3-1998 is quashed.
III. In so far as the second relief is concerned, petitioner has to approach the appropriate civil forum since it involves complicated questions of law which require a detail investigation of the matter by recording the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the second relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is rejected.
IV. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.