Back
1976 Supreme(Ker) 32
Judges : T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON
JOHN K.KURIEN AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, TRICHUR AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 5604 of 1975
Decided On : 02/14/1976
Advocates Appeared :
P. M. Kuruvilla; Jose Vithayathil; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair enquiry and the need for students to be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that the requirements of natural justice are not immutable and may differ in different circumstances.
Headnote:
Ragging - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - [RAGGING] - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Baglesdwar Prasah and Others, 1967 SCR. 767; Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala (1969 KLT. 290); Hira Nath v. Rajendra Medical College, Kanchi (AIR. 1973 S.C.1260); Glynn v. Keele University (1971) 1 WLR. 487; Reg v. Aston University Senate, Ex parte Roffey (1969 2 Q. B. 538)] - The court discussed the principles of natural justice and the application of these principles in disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized the importance of fair enquiry and the need for students to be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves. The court also highlighted that the requirements of natural justice are not immutable and may differ in different circumstances. It further emphasized that in any kind of domestic enquiry, a Tribunal should not rely on evidence taken behind the back of the party accused in respect of which the said party has not been given an opportunity to controvert or explain the same.
Fact of the Case:
Two second-year students of a college challenged their suspension and expulsion from the college hostel as a punishment for a ragging incident. The incidents involved ill-treatment and mental agony caused to first-year students. The students denied the charges, and the college council unanimously recommended their suspension and permanent dismissal from the hostel.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and stayed all proceedings pursuant to the same, allowing the petitioners to continue their studies ignoring the order. The court found that the punishment imposed was unjust as it was based on undisclosed information and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to state their case.
Issues: The issues included the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, the adequacy of opportunities given to the students to defend themselves, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair enquiry and the need for students to be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves. It highlighted that the requirements of natural justice are not immutable and may differ in different circumstances. The court also emphasized that in any kind of domestic enquiry, a Tribunal should not rely on evidence taken behind the back of the party accused in respect of which the said party has not been given an opportunity to controvert or explain the same.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and all proceedings pursuant to the same were stayed, allowing the petitioners to continue their studies ignoring the order. The court disposed of the case with no order as to costs.
1. Two Second Year students of the Government Engineering College, Trichur have approached this Court challenging the order of their Principal marked as Ext. P1 in the case suspending them from the College till the beginning of next semester in June 1976 as a punishment for the ragging incident in which they are alleged to be involved. They have also been, by the said order permanently expelled from the College hostel.
2. The incidents which led to the action had taken place on 5-11-1975 and 6-11-1975. The action against those alleged to be involved in the incidents was initiated on complaints received from three first year students of the college. The petitioners along with another student were first suspended pending enquiry. They were also sent out of the hostel.
3. Two senior members of the staff, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Professor of Electrical Engineering were appointed enquiry officers to conduct the enquiry into the matter. The charges against the petitioners were that they had along with some other senior students ill-treated by threatening, intimidating and causing mental agony three first year students of the college! The petitioners denied the charges totally.
4. After enquiry into the charges the enquiry officers found that two charges have been proved against the petitioners.
(1) Calling the complainants bad names and (2) causing mental agony to them.
5. The College Council met on 2411-1975 to discuss the enquiry report and the following decision was taken unanimously:
"Based on the enquiry Commission's report and other evidence it was recommended that the following students (who were kept under suspension from 6111975) may be suspended from the college till the beginning of the next semester in June 1976 and permanently dismissed from the Engineering College hostel as a punishment for the ragging incidents.
1. Sri. John K. Kurian-IIIrd Semester (Electrical)
2. Sri. Zakharia Thomas-IIIrd Semester (Chemical) 3. Sri. Thomas Rajan -IIIrd Semester (Chemical)" Petitioners are the first two of these students.
6. In attacking the impugned orders the petitioners have taken up various grounds. It is alleged that copies of the complaints were not given to the petitioners so as to enable them to have an effective cross-examination of the complainants at the time of the enquiry. The warden of the hostel, it is said, was acting as the prosecuting officer and also as the judge in the enquiry. AH the materials gathered by the enquiry officers are, it is alleged, not supplied to the petitioners and the principles or natural justice thereby
violated. The petitioners contend that reasonable opportunity to give explanation ought to nave been given after the enquiry was over and before the punishment was inflicted, which opportunity was denied to them. According to them charges were not framed in clear and unambiguous terms for the petitioners to give an effective reply. Petitioners also plead that as the enquiry only revealed that petitioners' guilt was calling the complainants bad names, even if that finding be sustainable on the records, the punishment imposed which will result in the petitioners' losing one year, is out of all proportion.
7. The Principal, the first respondent denies the allegations and seek to sustain the impugned order. Sufficient opportunity as required in law has been afforded to the petitioners to meet the charges against them. The charges were clear and what the petitioners had done had been briefly explained in the memorandum issued to them. The enquiry officers were heads of departments in the college and their report was unanimous. Toleration of misbehaviour will result in undermining the discipline of the institution. The punishment, it is contended on behalf of the respondents is only an appropriate one in the nature of the charges. It is also pointed out that the Union Education Ministry had directed putting down of ragging incidents with a firm hand. Unless a deterrent punishment is
