Back
1981 Supreme(Del) 117
High Court Of Delhi
ABHAY KUMAR YADAV - Appellant
Versus
K.SRINIVASAN - Respondent
Civil 309 of 1981
Decided On : 03/24/1981
B.K.PAL, D.S.Narula
A student's right to education is not absolute and can be restricted in cases of misconduct or to maintain peace and order on campus.
Headnote:
S. B. WAD - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - DELHI TECHNICAL EDUCATION RULES, 1975 - RULES 1(D), 3, 4 - SUSPENSION OF STUDENT FROM POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO EDUCATION - MALA FIDE - SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Pusa Polytechnic Institute, was suspended from the rolls and prohibited from entering the premises of the institute by the Principal's order due to his involvement in a stabbing incident. The petitioner challenged this order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, infringement of his fundamental right to education, mala fide, and contravention of social justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner was proper and legal, and that the petitioner voluntarily avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings. The court further held that the impugned order was in the nature of a preventive action to maintain peace on the campus and was not a final order. The court also held that the petitioner's right to education was not denied, as he had been highly irregular in attending classes and had engaged in misconduct. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of mala fide and contravention of social justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner was proper and legal? 2. Whether the petitioner voluntarily avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings? 3. Whether the impugned order was in the nature of a preventive action to maintain peace on the campus? 4. Whether the petitioner's right to education was denied? 5. Whether the petitioner's claims of mala fide and contravention of social justice were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner was proper and legal, as it was served at the petitioner's permanent address and the petitioner voluntarily avoided participating in the proceedings. 2. The court held that the impugned order was in the nature of a preventive action to maintain peace on the campus, as the petitioner was allegedly involved in a violent incident and had been highly irregular in attending classes. 3. The court held that the petitioner's right to education was not denied, as he had been highly irregular in attending classes and had engaged in misconduct. 4. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of mala fide and contravention of social justice, as no particulars of mala fide or collusion with the victim were furnished in the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) PETITIONER was suspended from the rolls of the three-year Diploma Course in Pusa Polytechnic Institute, by the order of the Principal on 16 -10-80. By the me order, he was prohibited from entering the premises of the Polytechnic. He was also directed to vacate the hostel room occupied by him. This was a temporary order. It was to be in force till the criminal case against him was decided. In this Writ Petition. , the petitioner has challenged this order. The petitioner (along with two other students), was involved in a stabbing incident in the Polytechnic on 15-11-1979. One Shri Ved parkash Pippal, a student of first year was stabbed. A criminal case u/s 307 I-P. C. is pending against these students. The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute, after due enquiry, had recommended expulsion of these students but the Principal did not impose the extreme penalty.
( 2 ) THE Director of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, has framed rules regarding conduct, discipline and punishment of the students. Rule-3 lays down what are called the "forbidden Practices". The relevant portion reads :
"no student shall indulge in any of the following practices, namely. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) Rowdyism and rude benaviour. (f) Use of violence in any form, (g) Offience of cognizable nature. . . -. . (i) Any other conduct unbecoming of a student of institution. "rule 4 prescribes the punishment that can be imposed on a student. There are two minor punishments, fine and suspension. The two major penalities are expulsion and rustication, which are awarded in cases of grave offences- Before imposing major penalties, the Principal shall refer the matter to the Director of Education for his approval. Expulsion debars a student from being re-admitted to the same Institution. Where a student is rusticated, he shall not be admitted to any institution till the expiry of the period of rustication. Rule l (d) lays down that powers to impose disciplinary actions are vested in the Principal of the Institution. Sub-rule (b) provides that observance of the rules of discipline and good behaviour shall be a condition essential to a student s continuance in an institution. A student is required to give an undertaking under sub-rule (c) (at the time of his admission), signed by his guardian, that the student submits to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Principal of the Institution. Under sub-rule (c), an appeal lies to the Director of Technical Education, against the disciplinary action taken by the Principal.
( 3 ) THE order of the Principal is challenged on the following grounds :
(I) No show-cause notice of the proceedings of the Discipplinary Committe was served on the petitioner. He could not. therefore, participate in the proceedings. This was against the principles of natural justice :
(II) The action was in contravention of the petitioner s fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Right to take education i? a fundamental right;
(III) The order was contrary to social justice
(IV) The order was mala fide. The Principal has acted in collusion with Vcd Parkash Pippal, the victim oi" stabbing.
( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that the authorities tried to serve the show-cause notice at the room in the hostels where the petitioner was staying. As they failed to locate the petitioner there, Mr. M. L. Mehra, the demonstrator working in the Polytechnic was sent to the residence of the petitioner. namely, D-1a/93, Janak Puri, New Delhi, where the father of the petitioner 5tays. This is the permanent address of the petitioner on recom. The petitioner s father has filed an affidavit in this Court where in the same address is given. Mr. Mehra found the house locked. After waiting there for one hour, Mr. Mehra pasted the nonce on the door of the said house. Mr. Mehra has submitted a report which is filed as Annexure R-l. There is no mode of service laid down in the Ru
