IMPORTANT POINT
The authority of a Dean to interfere in disciplinary actions of a Private Self Financing Minority College is limited, and procedural violations render such decisions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(N. NAGARESH, J.)

The petitioner, who is the Principal of Mother Arts and Science College, Peruvallur, Thrissur, a Private Self Financing Minority College affiliated to the 4^th respondent- University of Calicut, seeks to quash Ext.P1 order of the 2^nd respondent-Dean of Students Welfare. The petitioner seeks to declare that respondents 1 to 4 have no authority to interfere / sit in appeal against the disciplinary authority of the Principal of a Self Financing Minority College.

2. The petitioner states that the 5^th respondent and 6^th respondent were BBA students in the College. On 05.11.2024, a violent and verbal altercation took place between the two at the College gate bus stop. A complaint in this regard was received. The allegation was that while the 6^th respondent was attempting to board a private bus, the 5^th respondent forcefully pulled her out of the bus by hair causing the 6^th respondent to fall on the road. Thereafter, respondents 5 and 6 involved in violent physical attack and verbal abuse, which quickly escalated into a group fight when other female students got involved in the altercation.

3. Respondents 5 and 6 were placed under suspension for a week from 08.11.2024 pending enquiry. An Enquiry Commission consisting of five faculty members enquired into the incident and submitted Ext.P2 interim report and Ext.P3 final report. The Commission recommended dismissal of respondents 5 and 6 and lesser punishments on others involved in the incident. Ext.P4 notice of expulsion dated 22.11.2024 was issued on respondents 5 and 6. The disciplinary action taken against them was reported to the 2^nd respondent-Dean as per Ext.P4(a) communication.

4. Transfer Certificates were forwarded to respondents 5 and 6. However, they were permitted to appear for their University Semester Examinations. The 6^th respondent preferred a complaint before the 2^nd respondent challenging the disciplinary action, as per Ext.P7. The 2^nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply dated 03.12.2024. The petitioner was summoned for a hearing on 07.12.2024. After hearing the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has passed Ext.P1 order dated 13.01.2025, directing readmission of two students who were dismissed from the College on account of the serious misconduct.

5. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent-Dean has no authority to sit in appeal against a disciplinary action taken by the Principal of a Private Self Financing Minority College against its students. Ext.P7 complaint has been preferred to the 2^nd respondent. The Calicut University Act or Statute does not provide any authority to the 2^nd respondent to interfere with a disciplinary action taken by the Principal of an affiliated College.

6. Rule 2 of Chapter XXVII of Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 provides for appointment of members of the Board for Adjudication of Students' Grievances. The Board consists of 11 members. In the hearing conducted by the Board, there was no minimum quorum. Therefore, Ext.P1 decision is null and void.

7. Rules 5 and 6 of Chapter XXVII of the Calicut University First Statutes provide for procedure for entertaining a complaint from a student. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Chairman of the Board is bound to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Only if the Chairman is prima facie satisfied about the veracity of the allegations, the complaint can be referred to the Board. If the complaint is liable to be entertained, the Board shall commence a detailed enquiry. The procedural formalities for adjudication of a complaint was not followed while passing Ext.P1 order. The 1^st respondent-Vice Chancellor has no authority to direct implementation of Ext.P1 without placing it before approval of the Syndicate. The 5^th respondent has not preferred any complaint. Still, the 2^nd respondent has directed the petitioner to take back the 5^th respondent. Ext.P1 is highly arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside, urged the counsel