High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-12-18Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals disposed of; in...

WA Nos. 2173 & 2182 of 2012 (Against order in W.P.C. Nos. 29127/2012 & 29712/2012)

Case / Petition Number:WA Nos. 2173 & 2182 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Manjula Chellur, CJ
A.M. Shaffique, J.
Judgment Date: 2012-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals disposed of. Stay on the learned Single Judge’s interim orders to the extent consistent with ongoing enquiry; directions to ensure Enquiry Officer follows due process and principles of natural justice; leave open the challenge to the enquiry outcome in accordance with statutory procedures.
Final Disposition: Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals disposed of; interim orders stayed; enquiry to be completed in a timely manner with adherence to natural justice; challenge to enquiry findings to be pursued through proper channels.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Principal Thangal Kunju Musaliyar College of Engineering, Kollam
Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

Hashmi V. Z., student (3rd semester, TKM College), S/O Vijayakumaran
Director of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. George Poonthottam

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Shaijan C. George
• Sri P. I. Davis (Government Pleaders)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment addresses two writ appeals filed by the Principal of Thangal Kunju Musaliyar College of Engineering, Kollam, and the Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala, challenging interim orders that allowed three students (Hashmi V. Z. et al.) to appear for the 3rd semester examination pending a ragging enquiry. The petitioners (students) had sought mandamus to participate in the 3rd semester examinations, access certain documents, and withdrawal of suspension, along with directives to complete the enquiry and permit attendance in subsequent semesters. The learned Single Judge had, on 11–12 December 2012, permitted the petitioners to write their December examinations pending enquiry. The appellants obtained a stay via this Court, citing a previous decision (M.G. University v. Sherin S.) to justify suspending the interim orders. During arguments, it was acknowledged that the enquiry had been initiated with a first appearance fixed for 22 December 2012, and that disposal was to occur within about one month, ensuring natural justice. The court urged cooperation for a timely enquiry and noted that the enquiry officer must adhere to procedure and natural justice. Ultimately, the writ petitions and appeals were disposed of, with directions to follow due process and leave open subsequent challenge to enquiry outcomes based on the results.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the interim permission allowing petitioners to appear for the 3rd semester examinations pending the ongoing internal enquiry must be vacated. They emphasize that the enquiry has been initiated with a first appearance on 22 December 2012 and that it must be completed expeditiously, ideally within a month, to maintain institutional discipline and protect the College’s interests. They submit that the Defence already submitted should be considered by the Enquiry Officer, who is required to follow the prescribed procedure and natural justice. They urge that, while the enquiry proceeds, the students’ examination prospects should not be permanently prejudiced, and that any outcome of the enquiry will determine further action under due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (petitioners) argue that the suspension, though punitive, should not indefinitely deprive students of educational opportunities. They seek issuance of mandamus to allow them to appear in the 3rd semester examinations, withdrawal of suspension, and access to documents as per Ext. P4. They contend that the enquiry is in its initial stages and must be completed promptly to avoid prejudice to the students’ academic careers. They assert that natural justice requires a fair and timely enquiry with an opportunity to present written defences, and that postponing examinations without timely enquiry would be inequitable. They stress the urgency of balancing accountability for ragging with the students’ right to education.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M.G.University & Others v. Sherin S. & others	2010(4) KHC 261	Positive	Cited to justify the stay of the Single Judge’s interim orders; used as authority supporting the Court’s stay/discipline approach in the present matter.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WA Nos. 2173 & 2182 of 2012 (Against order in W.P.C. Nos. 29127/2012 & 29712/2012) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** # **THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/27TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **WA.No. 2173 of 2012 ()** **--------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.29127/2012 DATED 11-12-2012 .........** ## **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE PRINCIPAL THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIYAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KOLLAM-691005** **2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. HASHMI V. Z, AGED 19 YEARS, STUDENT 3RD SEMESTER MECHANICAL-PRODUCTION ENGINEERING ROLL NO 3114, T. K. M ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KOLLAM S/O.VIJAYAKUMARAN, RAPPADY, BLOCK OFFICE ROAD VENJARMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI.P.I.DAVIS** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2012, ALONG WITH WA. 2182/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.A. NO.2173/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **AI:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 28.11.2012 GIVEN TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.Nos.2173 and 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of December 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR,CJ** W.P.C.Nos.29127 and 29712 of 2012 are filed by three students seeking the following reliefs: ## “W.P.C.No.29127 of 2012 i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or Direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the 3[rd] semester examination scheduled as per Ext.P3 time table. ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or Direction to the 1[st] respondent directing him to issue the documents requested as per Ext.P4 application. iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or Direction to the 1[st] respondent to withdraw the suspension of the petitioner finding it as excessive in nature. W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 2 iv) And to grant such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. ## W.P.C.No.29712 of 2012 i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P4 and to quash the same; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 3 and 4 to complete the enquiry proceedings as per Exhibit-P4 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioners to write the 3[rd] semester B.Tech Examination commencing from 13.12.2012 as per Exhibit-P7 schedule; iv) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3[rd] respondent to withdraw the suspension and permit the petitioners to attend classes for 4[th] Semester commencing in January 2013; W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 3 v) grant such other reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The main challenge in the writ petitions was with regard to the order dated 28/11/2012 passed by the Principal of the College suspending the writ petitioners students on the allegation of their involvement in the ragging of a first year student in the hostel. 3. The learned Single Judge, by virtue of interim orders dated 11/12/2012 in W.P.C.No.29127 of 2012 and 12/12/2012 in W.P.C.No.29712 of 2012 permitted the petitioners to appear for the examination scheduled in December pending disposal of the enquiry into the complaint lodged by the Principal before the authority meant for such enquiry. Writ Appeal Nos.2173 and 2182 of 2012 are filed by the Principal of the College as well as University, aggrieved by the interim orders permitting the petitioners to take part in the examination. After referring to paragraph 10 in the case of **M.G.University & Others v. Sherin.S & others** reported in 2010(4) KHC 261, this Court granted stay of the orders of the learned Single Judge. W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 4 4. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Council for the College and University invited our attention that already enquiry proceedings are initiated and the first appearance is scheduled on 22/12/2012. The writ petitioners, according to their counsel, have already submitted their written defence which has to be considered by the Enquiry Officer. It is not in dispute that the procedure contemplated for such enquiry requires disposal of the enquiry within a period of one month. It is also not in dispute that having regard to the sensitivity in the matter which involves future of the students, endeavour must be made to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. 5. Learned counsel for the University submits that within a period of one month from 22/12/2012 or if possible earlier, the enquiry will be completed, if the writ petitioners co-operate with the enquiry. 6. Having regard to the future of the students, it is advisable that the writ petitioners also fully co-operate with the enquiry so as to allow the enquiry to be completed as early as possible and ultimately the result of the enquiry would decide what should be done with the writ petitioners. 5 W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 7. In that view of the matter, with the stay of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge, nothing remains for consideration both in the writ petitions and also in the writ appeals. At this stage, we find no good ground to keep the writ petitions and the writ appeals pending. However, we make it clear, depending upon the result of the enquiry, the parties are at liberty to challenge the result of the enquiry in accordance with the procedure. If the writ petitioners were to challenge the enquiry report, all contentions now raised in the writ petitions are kept open and they are entitled to raise similar contentions. It is needless to say, the Enquiry Officer has to follow the procedure contemplated for the enquiry, if any, and also follow the principles of natural justice in every respect. The Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (sd/-) **(MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE)** (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr19/12/2012 W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 6 W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 7 W.A.Nos.2173 & 2182 of 2012 and W.P.C.Nos.29127 & 29712 of 2012 8