Amrith Gokul v. Cochin University of Science & Technology and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:-** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **W.P(C).No.15861 of 2016 (G)** **-------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):-** **---------------** **AMRITH GOKUL, AGED 21, S/O. UDHAYAKUMAR, SREEPARAMESWARAM, EDAICODE, KARAKULUAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696564.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):-** **--------------** **1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERRY, COCHIN-683104.** **2. VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH KALAMASSERRY, COCHIN-683104.** **3. SARABHAI INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (SIT), P.B.NO.2, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **4. PRINCIPAL, SARABHAI INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (SIT), P.B.NO.2, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543.** - **R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-** **WP(C).No. 15861 of 2016 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 3-12-2015 BY WHICH THE PETITIONER IS DEBARRED FROM ENTERING THE COLLEGE CAMPUS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 3-12-2015 FROM INVESTIGATION OFFICER TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN APOLOGY OF PETITIONER DATED 29-12-2015. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APOLOGY AND UNDERTAKING OF PETITIONER WHICH IS ENDORSED BY PARENTS AND SISTER OF PETITIONER WHICH IS NIL DATED. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT RAM MOHAN DATED 1-3-2016 BEFORE DIRECTOR. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 1-3-2016 AGAINST PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NIL DATED SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 17-3-2016 BY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 23-3-2016 TO THE PARENTS OF PETITIONER AS TO THE DECISION TAKEN BY COLLEGE COUNCIL TO ISSUE COMPULSORY T.C. TO PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 8-4-2016 IN WPC NO. 14498/2016. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF COUNER AFFIDAVIT IN WPC NO. 14498/2016 WITH THE EXHIBITS DATED 12-4-2016. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22-4-2016 BY MOTHER OF PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.09.06.2015 FILED BY SMT.SUDHA PREM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.7.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANAD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.01/03/2016 BY MR.RAM MOHAN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SIST COLLEGE TO THE DIRECTOR OF SIST COLLEGE. EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.2.3.2016 BY THE FACULTY MEMBERS OF SIST COLLEGE TO THE DIRECTOR OF SIST COLLEGE.** **- 2 -** **WP(C).No. 15861 of 2016 (G)** **EXT.R3(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.03.2016 ISSUED TO FATHER OF PETITIONER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO COMPLY WITH SUSPENSION ORDER. EXT.R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINE COUNCIL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2016. EXT.R3(g) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.23.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PARENTS OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(h) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(i) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.19.4.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.14498 OF 2016.** **vku/[ true copy ]** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J -------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.15861 of 2016-G --------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with the Transfer Certificate issued to him; terminating his studies in the 4[th] semester B.Tech course under the 3[rd] respondent, affiliated to the 1[st] respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was earlier an incident in the 1[st] and 2[nd] semesters; when the petitioner had shortage of attendance and he was denied permission to appear for the examination. The petitioner approached the Lok Ayukta and obtained orders to permit him to sit for the examination. This has been the root cause for the enmity for the management, a Self-financing College, which has also been the reason for the issuance of the Transfer Certificate, is the contention raised. 2. As to the present incident, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand] was found missing from one of the faculty members; upon which the Principal questioned many students, who were in the Laboratory, from where the money went missing. After such - 2 - WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 questioning, a group of students entered the staff room and was trying to convince the teacher, who lost the money, that they were not responsible; but that they were willing to make good the amount by taking contribution from all the students. While such talk was going on, it seems that one Sri.Ram Mohan, another faculty member, entered the room and asked the students to leave the staff room; upon which a fracas ensued; in which the petitioner was alleged to have attempted to beat Sri.Ram Mohan. The learned Counsel would urge that there is no allegation that the faculty member was beaten; but only an apprehension is seen expressed in the complaint filed. It is also contended that the enquiry carried on was in violation of the principles of natural justice and, hence, the order of the Principal, following the decision taken by the College Council, granting the petitioner Transfer Certificate compulsorily, has to be interfered with by this Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the College would, however, contend that there had been many earlier incidents in which the petitioner was found to be involved in misconducts and WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 3 - the College had condoned all the said incidents on specific undertaking given by the petitioner and his parent not to be involved in such incidents thereafter. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a 4[th] semester student, this Court had directed the learned Counsel appearing for the College to enquire as to whether on a public apology expressed and a strict supervision ordered; the petitioner could be allowed to continue the course. This Court also directly asked the petitioner to approach the faculty member whom he is alleged to have attempted to assault and get a pardon from him. There are conflicting contentions taken by the learned Counsel about the manner in which the apology was tendered. In any event, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, taking cue from the directions in another case, has filed an affidavit, in which it is undertaken that the petitioner would enter the premises only for academic matters and that he would abide by the discipline enforced in the institution. Despite these, the management and the Principal have been firm insofar as refusing to condone the WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 4 - indiscipline, as it relates to a gross one, of attempting to assault a faculty member. Hence this Court has to necessarily consider the conflicting contentions. 5. The petitioner was suspended and was informed, over telephone, about an enquiry scheduled and was called upon to give his explanation; which the petitioner had submitted as per Exhibit P7. After that, the committee constituted, of faculty members, enquired into the matter and the enquiry report is seen at Exhibit P8. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Principal had taken a decision at Exhibit P9, on the basis of the advise of the College Council, to send out the student on issuance of compulsory Transfer Certificate. The communication issued to the parents of the petitioner is produced at Exhibit P9. 6. As to the violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Counsel for the respondent-College relies on two Division Bench decisions of this Court in _**Headmaster, Poilkavu H.S. v. Murali**_ **[1994 (2) KLT 518]** and _**Manu Vilson v. Sree Narayana College**_ **[1996 (1) KLT 788].** Suffice it to notice that on the question WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 5 - of discipline and how it has to be enforced in an educational institution, the Division Bench in _**Murali**_ ( _supra_ ) said so in paragraph 12: “12. In cases where academic discipline is involved rule of hearing has always been construed strictly. It is not the indispensable facet of principles of natural justice. Such rule can be waived in situation where Headmaster or Principal is satisfied that the ‘fairness’ has been shown to delinquent student or his guardian before action is taken against him. Such satisfaction can be arrived at by the Headmaster or by the Principal depending on the facts of each case and attendant circumstances. Issue of a pre-decisional or show cause notice to the delinquent student or his guardian to explain the allegations would no doubt constitute ‘fairness’. When such fairness is shown it is for the Headmaster or the Principal to decide any further opportunity is necessary in the facts of the case. But we can certainly visualise that even fairness to a delinquent would, in certain cases, cause more injustice than justice. Recently the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made a very significant remark about the extension of the rule of natural justice while dealing with the question of furnishing enquiry report to a delinquent employee. It is contained in _Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar_ (1993 (4) SCC 727). There it is observed: Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different - 6 - WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 consequence Would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice”. The Supreme Court in _Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijayashankar (AIR_ 1992 SC 952) remarked: Even though the procedure of affording hearing is as important as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public interest at times require flexibility in application of the rule as the circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter required to be dealt may serve interest Of justice better by denying opportunity of hearing....”. In that case the Karnataka Public Service Commission did not afford any opportunity to the candidates who appeared in competitive examinations to explain their bonafides and innocence in disobeying the instructions. But the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal issued directions to get the answer books of the candidates evaluated. These directions were challenged before the Supreme Court by the Public Service Commission and State of Karnataka. The orders of the Administrative Tribunal were set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that facts of the case justify the exclusion of the natural justice before ” taking any action in the matter . - 7 - WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 Likewise, the decision in _**Manu Vilson**_ ( _supra_ ), paragraph 10 can be usefully referred to: “10. Lastly it was contended by the counsel representing the appellants the delinquent students - that the enquiry into the alleged misconduct was conducted by the college authorities in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are not impressed with this argument It is well settled that natural justice will not be placed in a strait jacket As has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in _Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills,_ AIR 1994 SC 2657, no particular form of notice is required for complying with the principles of natural justice. It all will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The standard of notice and hearing will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In ,the instant case, where enquiry into the misconduct was held, proper notice by registered post acknowledgement due were sent to the students. One refused to accept it and others after accepting it took part in the enquiry in a militant attitude. Thereafter, it is not open to them to contend that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. We overrule the said contention”. Apposite also would be reference to _**Willie (William) Slaney Vs. State of M.P.**_ **[AIR1956 SCC 116]:** WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 ## - 8 - “.... It is a feeling, a way of thinking and of living that has been crystallized into judicial thought and is summed up in the admittedly vague and indefinite expression “natural justice”: something that is incapable of being reduced to a set formula of words and yet which is easily recognisable by those steeped in judicial thought and tradition”. 7. In the present case admittedly on suspension being issued, the petitioner was telephonically asked to give an explanation. In the explanation given at Exhibit P7, the petitioner has admitted of having spoken in an agitated manner to the faculty members, but supplies the reason that it was only due to the brotherly relationship the students generally shared with the faculty. There is also no specific denial of attempt to beat the faculty member. The petitioner in Exhibit P7 reply contends that he does not remember what actually transpired, when he was inside the staff room. The enquiry report on the other hand reveals that three staff members, who were examined by the Committee, specifically stated that they witnessed the petitioner shouting at Ram Mohan and attempting to manhandle him. One of the faculty members stated that but for the intervention of the other staff members, Ram Mohan WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 9 - would have been definitely beaten up. Another staff member concurred with the same and submitted that the petitioner raised his hand against Ram Mohan. This was affirmed by a third staff member also. The 4[th] faculty member only deposed, to the petitioner together with another student, having shouted at the teacher without any provocation and use of unparliamentary words. The teacher who was alleged to have been attempted to be beaten, was also examined and he deposed in accordance with his complaint. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not guilty of the misconduct alleged. 8. As far as the violation of the principles of natural justice, it has to be noticed that the petitioner’s explanation was called for. As has been declared by the Division Bench, in the aforecited decisions, the requirement of compliance of natural justice has to be looked at on the facts arising in each case and there cannot be any strict rule imposed as to the student, who is said to have abused and attemted an assault a teacher, being permitted to cross examine his teachers. The enquiry is seen conducted by WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 ## - 10 - senior faculty members and the report along with the explanation offered by the student was placed before the Governing Council of the College. 9. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was a person who was involved in many similar incidents of misconduct. A specific incident has been pointed out by the respondent-College, in which a student and her family were detained in their car inside the college premises, by a group of students, in which the petitioner also belonged. The complaint is produced at Exhibit R3(a). A police complaint was also registered, on which the Sub Inspector of Police at Exhibit R3(b), requested the Principal to keep the students away from the hostel, since the incident required questioning of the accused in custody. 10. It was in such circumstance that the petitioner had given a letter of apology and undertaking, produced at Exhibit P4. Exhibit P4 is relevant insofar as clauses (i) and (v), which are extracted hereunder: - “(i) I am aware that a large number of incidents have taken place in which I was involved in acts of indiscipline, such - 11 - WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 as manhandling fellow Classmates, malpractice in the examination, locking up of a official in the toilet, coming to the class with a toy gun, obstructing the passage of a car, within the College Premises, in which some girl students and their parents were present. - (v) On several occasions I was cautioned by my teachers. Each time I had pleaded guilty and I had given letters of apologies and undertakings (countersigned by my parents) to the effect that I will not repeat the act of indiscipline and that if I was found guilty, I may be sent out of the College with a compulsory TC on disciplinary grounds”. The petitioner, in the above letter, specifically speaks of many earlier instances where he was involved in various misconducts. He was aware of such actions having been acts of gross indiscipline and had specifically undertaken that the same would not be repeated. The parent of the petitioner along with his sister had also endorsed his undertaking as per Exhibit P3. The petitioner is revealed to be a habitual trouble maker who was granted many an opportunity to reform, which he refused to take. The lenience shown by the College in the earlier instances were found to have been WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 12 - misplaced since the petitioner continued with his agitational conduct. The concern of the College Authorities, of maintenance of discipline cannot be lightly brushed aside, when the present incident reveals a gross breach of discipline, of abusing and attempting to assault a teacher. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the grant of compulsory Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. 11. The affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 20.07.2016, taking cue from another case, cannot be acceded to since the other case in which this Court had attempted such a procedure was specifically on the proposal suggested by this Court, having been accepted by the College authorities and that was also a case in which there was a clash between the students, which resulted in an allegation of indiscipline. The distinction is insofar as the College having consented and the act of indiscipline being not so serious. 12. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding the date shown in Exhibit P9 of 16.03.2016 when actually the report submitted was dated 17.03.2016 is satisfactorily explained by the WP(C) No.15861 of 2016 - 13 - learned Counsel for the respondent-College as a typographic error. 13. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondent-College. The petitioner shall be issued with a Conduct Certificate and it is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the College and the College is of the opinion that he could be re-admitted on any terms, the judgment in this writ petition shall not stand in the way of the College re-admitting the petitioner at the discretion of the Management and the Governing Council. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed; with the above reservation. No costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]