1. The petitioners are all aggrieved with the dismissal of the petitioners from the respondent college. The dismissal of the respective petitioners were on the basis of two incidents, which happened on 05.09.2014 and 17.09.2014. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27724 of 2014 was involved in both the incidents and hence reference to the documents are made from the said Writ Petition.

2. Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 27724 of 2014 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) Nos.28925 of 2014 and 288931 of 2014 are the proceedings of the Principal, with respect to the two incidents and by which the petitioners were dismissed from the college and their names were removed from the rolls. Admittedly, the petitioners were suspended prior to such dismissal.

3. An enquiry is also said to have been conducted. The enquiry reports are seen produced at Ext.R1(a) and R1(b). Ext.R1(a) is the enquiry report with respect to the incident, which happened on 05.09.2014, in which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27724 of 2014 and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28925 of 2014 were involved. Ext.R1(b) is the enquiry report with respect to the incident that happened on 17.09.2014, in which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27724 of 2014 and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 28931 of 2014 were involved. The petitioners’ contention related to such enquiry having been carried on, without any notice to them and without raising any specific charges against them and proceeded with by merely examining the witnesses, without affording any opportunity to cross-examine and absolute lack of opportunity to defend the allegations in an appropriate manner.

4. The petitioners admittedly have approached the Students Grievance Redressal Board of the respondent University, which application is pending. The petitioners contend that the enquiry has been carried out behind their back by merely recording statements, without giving them a fair opportunity to cross-examine the teachers who deposed against them. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions, seek for setting aside of the dismissal order. This Court would not normally interfere with the orders passed, by a disciplinary authority, especially when a statutorily permissible challenge is pending. It is also to be noticed that very serious charges have been alleged, against the petitioners of misbehaviour with the Principal and other teachers of the college as also destruction of college property.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent College places before this Court a number of decisions reported in Nandakumaran v. Principal, Government Victoria College, Palghat 1965 KHC 10), Suresh Koshy Geroge v. University of Kerala and Others 1969 KHC 65), Headmaster, Poilkavu H.S. v. Murali 1994 KHC 380) and Indulekha Joseph v. Vice Chancellor (Chairman) & Ors., 2008(3) KHC 355), to contend that a strait jacket approach cannot be countenanced especially when an educational institution proceeds against students for gross misdemeanour, acts of violence and serious instances of breach of discipline.

6. Nandakumaran (supra) was a case, in which an enquiry was initiated against a student on a complaint made by one of the teachers. A memo of charges was issued and on consideration of the petitioner’s statement in explanation, two Professors were appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charges. The delinquent student’s statement was also forwarded to the Enquiry Committee. The delinquent was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee, who explained the charges levelled and on his denial, a statement from the complainant was recorded. An oral hearing was given by the Committee to the delinquent, in which the allegations, as corroborated by the statement of the complainant was explained to him. The delinquent was again permitted to submit an explanation and the Committee also took the statement of some other students and a few other members of the staff. On a consideration of the materials before the Committee, the Committee came to the conclusion that the charges a