SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 534

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. PATNAIK & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY - Appellant
VERSUS
CRAIG MCLEOD - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.5889 of 2012 (@ Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 32358 of 2010)
Decided on : 16-08-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Indiscipline in University campus.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against interim order - High Court erring in passing or declining to pass an interim order - Remedy is to approach the same High Court and not Supreme Court - In emergent and appropriate situation, however, Supreme may intervene. (Para 17)

        (1998) 9 SCC 209; (1999) 3 SCC 132; (2010) 8 SCC 110; (1978) 4 SCC 295; (1983) 2 SCC 325; (2007) 10 SCC 21- Relied upon

        (b) Education Laws - Discipline on campus - Courts should be reluctant to interfere in matters of discipline or administration of the internal affairs of a University. (Para 19)

        (1977) 1 SCC 279 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This case involves an important question of discipline in educational institutions.

       Finding of the Court:

        Courts should be reluctant to interfere in matters of discipline or administration of the internal affairs of a University.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.

       

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University is aggrieved by an interim order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P.(C) No. 694 of 2010 filed by Craig Mcleod.

3. The subject matter of the impugned interim order, is three directions given by the University on 02.02.2010. These three directions are:

(1) suspending Craig Mcleod from attending classes in the University of which he is a student,

(2) stopping him from availing the facilities of the University till final orders are passed in respect of his alleged gross misbehavior, and

(3) restraining from entering the University premises.

4. All three directions were stayed by the High Court by the impugned interim order till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The interim stay was subject to the condition that Craig Mcleod gives an undertaking, inter alia, of good behaviour. The impugned interim order also directed the University not to pass a final order in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod.

5. In our opinion the impugned interim order is not sustainable and while passing final orders, we have taken subsequent developments into consideration.

The facts:

6. It is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University. As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged with the police and the Proctorial Board of the University took an emergent decision to expel him from the University for violating the code of conduct and for beating and threatening a teacher. Pending a final decision on the allegations against him, Craig Mcleod was suspended from attending his classes, stopped from availing facilities of the University and restrained from entering the University premises by an order dated 02.02.2010.

Proceedings in the High Court:

7. Feeling aggrieved, Craig Mcleod challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2010 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. On 17.02.2010 notice was issued in the Writ Petition and in the interim, the passing of an order of rustication was stayed. This interim order was continued for a couple of months.

8. On 17.06.2010, the High Court granted liberty to the University to take a final decision in the matter of the alleged gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod within a week. In other words, the interim order was not extended.

9. Soon thereafter, some developments appear to have taken place but they are not clear from the record before us. Be that as it may, on 22.07.2010 the High Court recorded that Craig Mcleod had filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2010 in the High Court tendering an unconditional apology to the teacher concerned for the incident, which he stated was unintentional. The order passed by the High Court also recorded that Craig Mcleod stated that he would go to the University on 26.07.2010 and personally tender an apology to the concerned teachers. The case was then adjourned to 06.08.2010.

10. When the matter was taken up on 06.08.2010, the High Court was informed by the University and the concerned Professors that Craig Mcleod did come to the University to tender an apology but he was accompanied by several persons. It appears that an apology was not tendered by him and in any event the apology, if tendered, was not sincere in view of the above situation. This was, of course, contested by Craig Mcleod.

11. Based, however, on the affidavit of apology dated 21.07.2010, the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010 came to be passed by the High Court. Proceedings in this Court and pendent lite developments:

12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010 the University preferred a Petition for Special Leave to appeal (now a Civil Appeal). On 29.11.2010, this Court passed the following order:

“Issue Notice. Interim stay of the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it stays the passing of the final order in the disciplinary enq















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top