2002 Supreme(Raj) 135
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Rajendra Chopra - Appellant
Versus
University of Rajasthan & Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1239 of 2001
Decided On : January 23, 2002
P.S. Sharma, for Petitioner A.K. Sharma, for Respondents
Headnote:University of Rajasthan Ordinances, Ordinance 88; Penal Code, Section 341, 504, 332 & 323 – Suspension of student – Allegation of misbehaviour and misconduct – Provisionally allowed to appear in the examination under the interim order of the Court – Held – Petitioner concealed the facts – Gave slap on the face of the Principal – F.I.R. was lodged u/Sec.341, 504, 332 & 323 IPC – He was placed under suspension as per Ordinance 88 – Till December 29, 2000 he had not attended even a single class – His attendance was zero till that date – Willfully suppressed material facts hence not entitled to any relief. (Para 10)
The petition painted such a picture before the court that by way of sympathy he was provisionally permitted to appear in the examination. But from the reply of the respondents it appears that FIR was lodged against the petitioner because he gave slap on the face of Principal. The petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ordinance 88 and the college authorities did not allow him to appear in the examination. It also appears that till December 29, 2000 the petitioner did not attend even a single class and his attendance was zero till that date. The petitioner willfully suppressed these material facts from this court and thus is not entitled to any relief. (Para 10)
(2). As per facts averred in the writ petition, the petitioner while studying as a regular student in Second Year, Faculty of Arts, in Rajasthan College Jaipur was elected as President of the Union in the year 2000-2001. As a student leader he protested various actions of the college authorities, and because of this they were annoyed with him. The Principal of Rajasthan College lodged an FIR against the petitioner with the Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jaipur bearing No. 84 of 2001 for the offences under Secs. 341, 504, 332, and 323 IPC. and refused to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination.
(3). The petitioner filed writ petition on March 23, 2001 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination which was to be commenced from March 22, 2001. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination on March 22, 2001 and the examination of next paper was to be held on March 28, 2001. On March 27, 2001 this court passed an interim order directing the respondents to provisionally allow the petitioner to appear in the remaining papers of B.A. Part II.
(4). The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition with the avernment that the petition has concealed the following relevant facts-
(i) On March 16, 2001 the respondent No.3 Dr. R.D. Gurjar, Principal, University Rajasthan College Jaipur was called by the Vice Chancellor to discuss the matter of shortage of attendance as per requirement of University Rules and orders of High Court. When Dr. Gurjar was sitting and having discussions in the chamber of the Vice Chancellor at V.C. Secretariat, University Campus Jaipur, the petitioner came there and abused Dr. Gurjar in filthy language with dire consequence including physical liquidation. He also caught hold of Dr. Gurjar and gave slap on his face. Dr. Gurjar made a report in writing to the Vice Chancellor with a copy to Chief Protector, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur to lodge an FIR with the Police and to take disciplinary action as per University Ordinance.
(ii) Looking to the gravity of the misbehaviour and misconduct, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Chief Proctor on March 16, 2001. Copy of the suspension order was displayed on the notice board of the University of Rajasthan and the same was also sent by registered post to the petitioner.
(iii) Vide notice dated December 12, 2000 Shri Ram Narain Chopra father of the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the attendance of the petitioner was zero till the date of the issuance of the letter. The position in regard to petitioner and other students was also displayed on the notice Board on December 30, 2000 and March 2, 2001.
(5). The respondents further stated in the reply that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the examination in view of Ordinance 88 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance. According to the respondents the facts stated in the writ petition is not entitled incorrect and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(6). I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully scanned the material on record.
(7). Before proceeding further it is necessary to consider the provisions contained in O