In the case of students being caught red handed in the act of indiscipline, the only principle of natural justice that needs to be considered is whether the authorities acted fairly and reasonably and whether the student was prejudiced in explaining their side of the case.

The petitioner was a third year B. A. Philosophy student in the Pachaiappa's College, Madras. He also claims to be the General Secretary of the College Students' Union at the relevant time. On 15-9-1995 he was taking his examination in English in Hall No. 39. The examination time was between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. After having entered the examination hall, the petitioner says, that at about 11.30 a.m., he heard some commotions in the place below the examination hall. Says the petitioner, that he apprehended the problem as relating to a student and as General Secretary he sought permission to go out and enquire in the matter. It turned to be a problem between the Watchman and a parent of one student and he therefore, returned to the examination hall. According to the petitioner one Professor Ramabushanam questioned his entry into the hall, but the petitioner was assaulted by the Professor. In a short while, the first respondent, Principal arrived at the scene and the petitioner was taken to the Principal's Room. According to the petitioner some other students also questioned the conduct of the Professor and the Principal straightaway expelled the petitioner and suspended two other students pending further enquiry against them. The order of expulsion is said to have been put up in the Notice Board of the College. The writ petition is to quash the said order of expulsion dated 15-9-1995.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of the College, it is stated that the petitioner was writing his answer paper in September, of the year. On 15-9-1995 in the morning sessions, English-I paper was taken by the students and in the evening sessions English-II paper was to be taken. The petitioner who attended the morning session at 9.30 a.m. left the examination hall at 10.50 a.m. without the permission of the Invigilators. The Rules relating to the examinations specifically state that no candidate should be allowed to leave the examination hall and even if they do so, they should be accompanied by an Assistant Superintendent or a member of the teaching staff of the College. When the petitioner left the examination hall, the answer paper was collected by the Hall Superintendent. The petitioner spent 15 minutes outside thc hall and sought to return to the examination hall. The Hall's Superintendent refused to return the answer paper and thereupon the petitioner is said to have argued with the Hall Superintendent and that as Secretary of the College Students Union, he had some special privileges. The petitioner is said to have abused the Hall Superintendent with foul and filthy language. Two of his classmates, one D. Arunprakash and B. Vinayagam joined the petitioner in intimidating the Hall Superintendent. There was a commotion in the examination hall. The Chief Superintendent and Professor being Professor Ramabushanam, proceeded to the hall. The petitioner did not mind the Chief Superintendent and continued his argument with the Hall Superintendent in an intimidatory manner. The petitioner and his two colleagues called upon the other students to come out of the examination hall. It is at this stage that the Principal entered the hall and directed the petitioner and his two colleagues to come to the Principal's Room.

3. Four Hall Superintendents who were in the said Hall No. 39 have given reports requesting the Chief Superintendent to take action. The Chief Superintendent was asked to make an enquiry on the spot and submit a report. Since the petitioner was instigating other students to boycott the examination, the first respondent convened a meeting of the Heads of all Departments as well as the Discipline and Students' Welfare Committee. The meeting took place at about 12 noon and the petitioner was present. The first respondent made enquiries from all the Hall Superintendents and the Chief Superintendent. The petitioner was asked about his conduct on the basis of the allegations made against him. The only answer of th