Compliance with natural justice principles is crucial in expulsion cases, and lack of evidence for mala fide and discrimination is essential for upholding expulsion orders.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioner is a III year student in B.E., Civil Engineering Course, in Karunya Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, the Principal of which is the first respondent. The second respondent is the Registrar, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. The petitioner is challenging the order made by the first respondent on 8-9-1992 expelling him from the College and the hostel for indulging in ragging the I Year students, beating the students in uncultured way, using abusive words against them, showing obscene pictures and threatening them for the consequences, thereby giving mental and physical torture to the I Year students.

2. At the outset it should be mentioned that the second respondent is wholly unnecessary to this petition.The second respondent has nothing to do whatever with the impugned order passed by the first respondent. No relief has been prayed for by the petitioner against the second respondent. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not disclose the reason for impleading the second respondent as a party to the petition. The second respondent has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court by being impleaded as a party. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as against the second respondent.

3. The petitioner's case in short is that he has been victimised by some members of the staff of the College who have a personal grudge against him and that there was no notice to him or any kind of enquiry whatever before the impugned order was passed. In the first respondent's counter affidavit, the allegations made by the petitioner are denied and it is categorically stated that an enquiry was held by a Committee on a complaint received from a Ist Year Student and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges made against him. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating his stand and for the first time, he alleged therein that the first respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- and a statement admitting the charges from the petitioner and he refused to comply with the same, he has been victimised.

4. The two grounds of attack against the order of expulsion are, (1) the principles of natural justice have been violated, as there was no enquiry whatever before the said order was passed; and (2) the order is mala fide and brought about because of personal motives of some members of the staff against the petitioner. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it is to be rejected in limine, as no particulars whatever of the alleged mala fides are set out in the affidavit. The petitioner has not given any details as to why some members of the staff should have any personal grudge against him and how they brought about the order of expulsion against the petitioner. In the absence of any specific allegations which could indicate mala fide on the part of the first respondent, there is no justification to entertain any argument in that regard.

5. The only question that remains to be considered is whether there was an enquiry and whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The first respondent has produced the relevant files not only pertaining to the present enquiry which led to the expulsion order, but also to the enquiry held in 1991 in which the petitioner was found guilty of certain misconduct.

6. In the previous year, viz., 1991, one Jayakumar, Ist Year Student, made a complaint against senior students by name Selvam and Shaji Samuel. It was the case that the said Selvam wanted him to purchase a mini-drafter for a sum of Rs. 70/- and when he expressed his inability to do so as he had no money, the said Selvam attacked the Ist Year student and poked him on his chest and stomach with the sharp edge of the mini-drafter, causing severe pain. The other senior student Shaji Samuel was said to have slapped the Ist Year student with his chappals. There was a complaint by one Kuntran against Mr. Selvam and the petiti