Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 324
2012 (2) PLJR 261
PATNA HIGH COURT
Navin Sinha, J.
Vivek Kumar S/o Shri Chandeshwar Pandit, R/o Village Fatehabad, P.O.- Sehduari, P.S.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali & Ors.
vs.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors.
CWJC No. 1378 of 2012
Decided On : 27.2.2012
For the Petitioners: M/s Satyabir Bharti, Alok Chandra.
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 5 & 6: Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Arif Raza.
The court emphasized the need for fair and transparent procedures, compliance with principles of natural justice, and the statutory provisions for conducting enquiries and imposing punishments under the AICTE Act.
Headnote:
Ragging - Expulsion - AICTE Act, Clauses 6(a), 6(e), 8(3), 8(4)(a) - The court discussed the AICTE regulations for prevention and prohibition of ragging, the composition and duties of the Anti-Ragging Committee and Squad, and the permissible punishments for ragging. The court emphasized the need for fair and transparent procedures, compliance with principles of natural justice, and the statutory provisions for conducting enquiries and imposing punishments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, second year students at a government college, were expelled for alleged ragging without being given an opportunity to defend themselves. The Anti-Ragging Committee's constitution and procedures were found to be irregular and in violation of statutory regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the expulsion order was without jurisdiction and vitiated in law due to flagrant violations of statutory procedures, lack of fair procedure, and denial of the opportunity for defense. The court also highlighted the irreversible deleterious effects of expulsion on students.
Issues: Violation of statutory procedures, fairness in procedure, availability of alternative remedy, and the irreversible impact of expulsion on students.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expulsion order was illegal from inception due to flagrant violations of statutory procedures, and the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude the court from intervening in the case.
Final Decision: The expulsion order was set aside, and the petitioners were allowed to continue their course with monetary compensation of Rs.1,00,000 each, to be adjusted against their fees and expenses. The State Government was permitted to recover the compensation amount from the salary of the officials involved in the Anti-Ragging Squad and Committee.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
2. The petitioners are stated to be second year students in the discipline of Mechanical. Electrical and Electronics stream respectively at the Motihari College of Engineering, a Government College under the Department of Science & Technology. They are aggrieved by the order of expulsion dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Officer on Special Duty on allegations for having indulged in ragging a first year student as held on enquiry by the Anti Ragging Committee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are alleged to have ragged a first year student, Monika Shailesh. No statement of the victim was ever recorded much less furnished to the petitioners with an opportunity to defend. No show cause notice of any allegations was ever given to the petitioners. The procedure followed by the Anti-Ragging Squad and Anti-Raggil1g Committee was completely unilateral and ex parte in nature. At no stage of the alleged enquiry, the petitioners were associated with it in any manner to present their defence of having been falsely implicated in the matter. It was their alleged conduct which was the subject of enquiry. Yet they were not considered relevant to be associated with the enquiry.
4. The Anti-Ragging Committee which enquired the matter was not constituted in accordance with the regulations and did not have any representative of the civil and police administration, local media, NGO involved in youth activities, representatives of parents and students of the fresher category and senior students, non-teaching staff. There was not mixed gender membership. The order of expulsion was to be passed by the Anti Ragging Committee under Clause 8(3) and not the Officer on Special Duty. The Anti-Ragging Committee in its report dated 15.10.2011 has taken into consideration extraneous material and signed a back dated order when it alleges that on 17.10.2011 the petitioners compelled first year students to go to Patna for demonstration.
5. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioners had rushed to the Court without availing the alternate remedy of Appeal under Clause 8(4)(b) of the regulations before the Vice Chancellor.
6. Learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that the procedure provided under the Regulations and the directions of the Supreme Court have been followed. The college has constituted an Anti-Ragging Committee and Anti Ragging Squad. The occurrence took place on 14.10.2011. The Anti-Ragging Squad recorded the statement of the alleged victim who was weeping. The Anti-Ragging Committee on 15.10.2011 adequately considered and deliberated the report of the Anti Ragging Squad. The conduct of the petitioners was adequately considered and discussed. The victim had fainted as a con• sequence of ragging. A show cause notice was given to petitioner no. 3 on 5.11.2011 at Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. A First Information Report has also been lodged on 15.10.2011. Eight professors constituted the Anti-Ragging Committee and participated in the deliberations.
7. The All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") has framed regulations dated 1.7.2009 under the AICTE Act for prevention and prohibition of ragging. Clauses 6(a) and 6(e) of the same reads as follows:-
''6(a) Anti-ragging Committee. Every institution University including Deemed to be University imparting technical education shall constitute a Committee to be known as the Anti-Ragging Committee to be nominated and headed by the Head of the Institution, and consisting of representatives of civil and police administration, local media, Non-Government Organizations involved in youth activities, representatives of faculty members, representatives of parents, representatives of students belonging to the freshers' category as well as senior students, non-teaching staff; and shall have a diverse mix of membership in terms of level as well as gender.
6
