Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Siddharth Jain - Petitioner
Versus
Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies & Anr. - Respondents
WP(C) 9862/2015
Decided On : 17.11.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr R.K. Kapoor, Ms Astha Nigam & Mr Sai Jyotsna, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr Amit Bansal, Ms Manisha Singh, Ms Seema Dolo & Mr Akhil Kulshrestha, Advocates
The judgment emphasizes the need to consider age-based culpability, reformation, and rehabilitation in disciplinary actions involving young offenders.
Headnote:
Misdemeanour - Disciplinary Action - Ordinance XV(B) - IPC, JJC Act, 1958 Act - The court considered the petitioner's involvement in misdemeanour, the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, and the reduction of punishment by the Principal. It analyzed the age of the petitioner, the legal provisions under IPC, JJC Act, and 1958 Act, and the principles of reformation and rehabilitation. The court suspended the punishment with conditions to promote reformation and rehabilitation of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student, was found guilty of misdemeanour involving inappropriate behavior towards a visiting student. The Disciplinary Committee recommended a two-year debarment, reduced to one year by the Principal. The petitioner admitted guilt and tendered an apology.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner involved in misdemeanour, acknowledged his contrition, and considered the age-based culpability. It balanced the interests of the institution, victim, and the need for reformation and rehabilitation.
Issues: The court considered whether the punishment imposed was excessive given the petitioner's age and the legal provisions for young offenders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of reformation and rehabilitation, considered the age-based culpability, and balanced the interests of the institution, victim, and the need for deterrence.
Final Decision: The court suspended the punishment with conditions to promote reformation and rehabilitation of the petitioner.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
PREFATORY FACTS
1. This is a second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a young adult, approximately, 20 years of age, has approached the court, for the second time. In the first round, he had filed the petition, which was numbered as: WP(C) 7891/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2015.
1.1 At that stage, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Committee, which remained to be adjudicated upon at that relevant point in time. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit in accordance with law, in case, he remained aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Committee.
1.2 Since then, the Disciplinary Committee appointed by respondent no.1 i.e. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies (hereafter referred to as the College), has adjudicated upon the show cause notice and given its recommendations. Based on these recommendations, respondent no.2 i.e. the Principal of the college, has taken a decision in the matter.
2. It is in this context, that the instant writ petition was filed, to begin with, to challenge the order passed by the Principal of the college. The impugned order by itself does not carry any date, though it is accompanied by a covering letter dated 29.09.2015, addressed by the college, under the hand of the Administrative Officer, to the petitioner herein.
3. Briefly, the Disciplinary Committee found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and, therefore, recommended that the petitioner be debarred for two years: from entering the college premises, attending classes, from participation or representing the college in any of its activities, and to appear in the university/ college examinations.
3.1 The Principal of the college, as indicated above, vide the impugned order has accepted, in substance, the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee save and except qua the quantum of punishment. The Principal has reduced the period of debarment to one year, as against two years, recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.
4. It is in this backdrop, that the petitioner has approached this court to assail the Principal’s order. However, it must be noted, at the very outset, that even prior to the passing of the impugned order, on 23.09.2015, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Principal whereby, he accepted his guilt and tendered an apology.
5. Notice in this petition was issued on 16.10.2015, which was made returnable on 05.11.2015. Since then, two affidavits, dated 31.10.2015 and 05.11.2015, have been filed by the petitioner. Simply put, these are affidavits of apology filed by the petitioner.
5.1 At the hearing held on 05.11.2015, the petitioner was present. Mr. Kapoor, who appeared for the petitioner, made submissions, broadly, to the effect, that the petitioner, accepts his guilt and that, therefore, his submission was restricted only to the quantum of punishment. Mr Kapoor submitted that the petitioner, once again, tenders his unconditional apology in respect of misdemeanour qua which he has been found guilty.
5.2 To be noted, hereafter, for reasons of privacy, I would be referring to the victim i.e. the student qua whom the misdemeanour was committed as ‘M’.
6. With this preface, let me etch out, the broad facts, which obtain in the matter as recorded in the Disciplinary Committee’s report. The petitioner, who is a student of class BBS IInd E, was given the role of a “buddy” [i.e. a student escort], under a United Kingdom (U.K.) Study India Programme, 2015 (in short the, “study programme”).
6.1 The study programme, evidently, is a British Council initiative, in which, the college, has been participating for nearly three years. As a part of the study programme, this year, students from U.K. visited India for a period of three days.
6.2 For the current year, an entity known as Indogenius (which was th
