IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1016 of 2010
1. Kandarp Jha
2. Yatendra Bhushan Ranjan
3. Binod Kumar
4. Kumar Pallav
5. Abhay Kumar ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Ms. Neha Prashant, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
_______
04/ 17.05.2010
. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. By the impugned order
dated 18.02.2010 the guardians of the petitioners have been
informed that the petitioners had indulged in beating up two of their
junior students on 16.02.2010, with regard to which an F.I.R. was
lodged. The order says that considering the incident and on the
recommendation of the disciplinary committee of the college the
Management of the College has decided to expel the petitioners
from the college.
2. The F.I.R. dated 17.02.2010 with regard to the incident
dated 16.02.2010 has been filed as Annexure to this writ petition.
According to the F.I.R. the two junior students assaulted belonged
to the 2008 batch. The assaulting party belonged to the 2007 and
2005 batch. The F.I.R. itself mentions that the provocation for
beating up of the two students of 2008 batch was that those two
students were alleged to have fought and beaten up some other
students earlier.
3. Considering these facts, firstly the case is only technically of
ragging. Normally ragging is seen as harassment of the fresher
students. Admittedly, as mentioned above, the reason and
motivation and provocation for the assault appears to be of an
earlier alleged assault by the two students of 2008 batch.
4. Further, although it is alleged in the counter-affidavit that a
notice dated 17.02.2010 was given to the petitioners but a copy of
that notice enclosed as Annexure ‘C’ to the counter-affidavit of the
college shows that it only requires the petitioners and others
involved to appear before the disciplinary committee at 3.00 p.m.
on 17.02.2010 in the office of the Principal in connection with the
2.
incident of 16.02.2010. The notice does not give any further details
and in my opinion it does not constitute a “reasonable” opportunity
of hearing. The “reasonable” opportunity of hearing, obviously in
the light of the nature of the incident and the time available in hand,
requires clear indication of the allegation against the person noticed
and grant of a reasonable time to submit a reply in writing . A mere
oral hearing can suffer from the vice of non-notice in the impugned
order, about what has transpired during the hearing, that is to say
what defence the person noticed has taken. This would make it
difficult for the superior authorities or Courts to judge whether the
defence has been considered in its proper perspective or not.
5. Further the F.I.R. as registered is under Section 323 I.P.C.
only and the injury reports also do not indicate any such major
injury as would take the F.I.R. to any higher section e.g. grievous
hurt. The injury reports also do not indicate that any of the two
assaulted students had to be hospitalised as a result of the injuries
caused, although rods are alleged to have been used for the
purpose of assault.
6. The punishment of expulsion of a student from a college in
the midst of a professional course being pursued by the student is
virtually the extreme punishment which can be awarded.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances mentioned
above, I am of the opinion that the extreme punishment awarded
without affording an adequate and reasonable opportunity of
hearing cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Further it
would be open to the college to give a proper show-cause notice,
inviting defence in writing within a reasonable time which in the
circumstance of the case may be anything ranging from three days
to seven days, and the matter must thereafter be considered by the
disciplinary committee as to whether or not all or any of the
petitioners were actually involved in the assault and if so whether
the said assault can fall within the definition of ragging not merely
technically but also substantially. The disciplinary committee must
also consider as to whether having regard to the overall facts and
circumstance it is necessary to hand out the extreme punishment
which would result in ruining the entire future prospects and career
of the petitioners or a lesser punishment e.g. suspension from
college for a limited period would be sufficient as a lesson not only
to the petitioners but also to serve as an exemplar to others to
refrain from future mischief.
3.
8. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition is
allowed leaving it open to the respondent college to take proper
action. The impugned order enclosed as Annexure-3 series are
hereby quashed.
D.S. (Sushil Harkauli, J.)